Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CLERICAL MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL

SHELL BRAZIL BILL

WINCHESTER CATHEDRAL CLOSE BILL

Amended, considered to be read the Third time.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)>

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Space Research

Mr. Strachey: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he has examined the possibility of co-operating with the United States authorities in the provision of launching vehicles for a joint programme of space research either in addition, or as an alternative, to co-operating with European Governments.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Yes, Sir. The United States authorities have already generously made the Scout satellite launcher available, and I have no doubt that cooperation in the field of space research will be carried still further in the years to come.

Mr. Strachey: Will the Minister tell the House how that interlocks with his programme of consultations with European Governments, and will he assure us that there is no conflict between cooperation with the European Governments and co-operation with the United States Government in this matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no conflict. As the right hon. Gentleman has a later Question which touches on this, perhaps he will await that reply.

Mr. Strachey: asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in view of Herr Strauss's recent statements, he will reconsider the whole question of a space research programme anew without any attempt to make use of the work put into the Blue Streak project.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. And I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not confuse the question of co-operation in pure space research with the separate but important question as to whether Europe should leave the manufacture of satellite launchers to America and Russia.

Mr. Strachey: Surely these two Questions are inextricably interlocked. As we understand it, the Minister has attempted to undertake a scheme of joint research on the basis of completing the Blue Streak project. Is he not aware that many of us think that this has turned out to be an error and that it would be far better simply to have a project of joint space research and if people wish to use the Blue Streak project, that is for them? But I cannot help thinking that the Minister is putting off his possible collaborators by his present procedure.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Most Questions are connected to some other Question, but these happen to be different. One is whether we should co-operate in space research—everybody agrees that we should. The other is and I agree that it could be answered either way—whether it would be right for Europe to say that in the West a complete monopoly should be left with the United States in the manufacture of satellite launchers, no matter what they were used for, whether space research or commercial purposes. This is a matter which I will not debate now, but we have discussed it on other occasions.

Southampton Airport

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Aviation what is the present position in relation to the proposed closure of Southampton Airport in April, 1961.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The terms of sale to the Southampton Corporation have been agreed.

Mr. Howard: The fact that Southampton Airport is to be kept open will be a source of satisfaction to all concerned with the activities of the port and town of Southampton. Will my hon. Friend expedite agreement on a realistic price under the Crichel Down procedure for the remaining area of land within the perimeter of the airfield? Secondly, in order to keep the airport operational, will he ensure that the Ministry's technical staff are not withdrawn from the airport until the new operators have a reasonable opportunity of replacing them?

Mr. Rippon: The remainder of the land, which constitutes the northern extension of the airport, has been offered back to the former owners on terms which are both realistic and reasonable. We have announced withdrawal of the technical services on 9th April, but, of course, a short extension can be arranged, if this is necessary to avoid a gap in operations.

Dr. King: Will the hon. Gentleman continue to do all he can in using his good offices to support both the corporation and the prospective buyer of the airport to keep it in use as an airport?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir.

B.E.A. Services (Leipzig Fair)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will give an assurance that the prohibition imposed on British European Airways to operate aircraft to Leipzig during the Fair will be lifted before the next fair in order that that airline may be able to share in the passenger traffic available now to its competitors.

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no such prohibition so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned.

Dame Irene Ward: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that it has been stated, I think by B.E.A. itself, that no services were operated because the West German Government did not wish them to operate? If this is not true, which I should be very glad indeed to hear, because it would seem more than stupid, will my right hon. Friend take steps to assure everyone in Europe and our exporters in this country that British

Airways can operate to Leipzig during the Fair if it so desires?

Mr. Thorneyeroft: The Government certainly have not prohibited British European Airways from flying anywhere. If there is some question of inter-Governmental agreement, this would be a matter for the Foreign Office. I would remind my hon. Friend that similar problems which have arisen in trade were surmounted by us, as by the West German Government, by carrying on without inter-Governmental agreement.

Prestwick Airport (Transatlantic Passengers)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will provide separate Customs-free accommodation at Prestwick Airport for incoming transatlantic passengers intending to proceed to London.

Mr. Rippon: Customs facilities already exist at Prestwick. It is for the airline concerned to decide whether to present passengers for clearance there or at London.

Mr. Rankin: The Minister has not grasped the point of the Question. Perhaps that is my responsibility. Is he aware that after one of these long-distance aircraft has flown the Atlantic and has touched down at Prestwick for about 40 to 50 minutes passengers are kept on board? Is it not possible to give passengers the opportunity of a little release so that they may stretch their limbs before proceeding to London?

Mr. Rippon: Arrangements are sometimes made for passengers to stretch their limbs a little, but Customs inspection as such would delay the aircraft, whatever the facilities.

Mr. Rankin: The point of the Question is that there should be arrangements which would obviate the need for Customs inspection at Prestwick for those who are proceeding to London.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Let them land at Manchester.

Mr. Rippon: Customs inspection normally takes place in London with the large jet aircraft. This is a matter in which the airlines concerned attempt to determine what is the best procedure for themselves and for their passengers.

Prestwick Airport (Communications)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what progress is being made in providing improved facilities for transit between Prestwick Airport and Glasgow.

Mr. Rippon: If the hon. Member will let me know what type of facilities he has in mind I will look into the matter.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman keeping in close touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter of transit facilities? Does he realise that the first stretch of the new road passing east of the airport was opened on Saturday, four months ahead of schedule? Will he ensure that that applies to the rest of the road through Ayr and on to the south? If he does not, we shall still be faced with the congestion of traffic at the airport that we have faced during the last four or five years.

Mr. Rippon: Of course, my right hon. Friend is in close touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and we will bring the specific point which the hon. Gentleman has just raised to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Venereal Disease

Mr. Marsh: asked the Minister of Health how many patients were treated for venereal diseases in each of the last four years.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Marsh: Is it not well known that in 1959 the figure of freshly notified cases was in excess of 116,000? Has it not also been recently stated publicly by a large journal that the greatest increase of notifiable cases of venereal disease was in the 18 to 19 year-old age group.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman appears to be referring to new cases. His Question referred to cases treated.

Mr. Marsh: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the reintroduction of legislation, similar to Defence Regulation 33B.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Mr. Marsh: Does it not appear that the Minister is treating this matter with a degree of casualness which is surprising? Is it not quite obvious to everybody that there is a rapid increase in the number of new cases of venereal disease and that this represents a major problem? Does not he think that his Department should do more than stick coy posters in public lavatories?

Mr. Powell: It is quite true that the increase in the new cases of gonorrhoea gives cause for anxiety, but I cannot believe that the compulsory notification, examination and treatment of venereal diseases would help.

Mr. Marsh: Is it not a fact that the 1959 figure of new notified cases of venereal disease was higher than that which existed when this Defence Regulation was introduced? Is it not also a fact that the only objections ever made to Defence Regulation 33B were on grounds of personal liberty? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that to defend the liberty of people it is necessary to infect young people with syphilis?

Mr. Powell: I do not believe that the spread of habits and knowledge which might contribute to an improvement in this matter would be in any way helped—rather the contrary would be the case—by the introduction of compulsory procedures.

Physiotherapists

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of male physiotherapists in training for the last available year and for 1953, together with the wastage for these years.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I regret that the figures are not available for men separately.

Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the recruitment of male physiotherapists is in a state which does not cause her anxiety? Is it not a fact that there seems to be a constantly decreasing number of people who avail themselves of these facilities?

Miss Pitt: I cannot answer a question about the recruitment of male physiotherapists because men and women are


recruited together and we do not keep separate figures. But overall the recruitment figure has improved over the last three years. Although there is still a shortage, the number of people in training should help to remedy it.

Transparent Plastic Bags

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the dangers to young children of transparent plastic bags; and what action he proposes to take to publicise these dangers, whether by way of circular to local authorities and other bodies or by other appropriate means.

Miss Pitt: Yes, Sir. The Ministry and the local health authorities are taking every opportunity to bring these dangers to the notice of those in charge of young children.

Mr. Montgomery: I am sure that the news is good news. While thanking my hon. Friend for her reply, may I ask her whether she is aware that when a small child puts one of these bags over his or her head and breathes in the sides are drawn against the face and immediately a vacuum is formed which makes it difficult for the child to get it off? Is she aware that the British Medical Association has warned that these transparent plastic bags are as potentially dangerous as the drugs which many people keep locked away in cupboards? In view of all this, will she get her Ministry to expedite the issue of this information so that parents can be warned about these bags?

Miss Pitt: I am aware of the dangers. By means of health education we try to bring them home to parents, and in that we have the help of the Press, the B.B.C. and particularly the women's journals.

Welfare Foods

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Health why he sent a circular to the medical officers of health of local authorities, limiting the supply to expectant mothers and infants of orange juice to two bottles a week, of cod liver oil to one bottle a fortnight, and of vitamin tablets to two packets a month.

Mr. Powell: I have sent no circular to this effect. I am, however, sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular which he may have in mind.

Mr. Brockway: Is the Minister aware that I obtained the information from one of those who said that he was the recipient of this circular? Does he deny that the effect of the circular is on the lines of my Question? Does it not mean that, in addition to the hardship which will be caused by the right hon. Gentleman's new Bill, mothers and others who are entitled to these services will be denied them because they have not fully used the rights which they had before the introduction of the Bill?

Mr. Powell: Oh, no. There is no question at all of people not getting their entitlement.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the circular which he has sent out has put into operation the effect of the Question? People are now being limited in the amount of the commodities which they can get.

Mr. Powell: No. They will be able to get their full entitlement. Perhaps the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) would like to look at the circular. I will gladly send a copy to the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater).

Mr. K. Robinson: Is it not a fact that before the Minister's action a pregnant mother could have a full nine months' supply and draw it at once? Is it not now a fact that she can draw her supply only up to 1st June, possibly a fortnight at a time? Quite apart from the parsimony of this action, is it not improper that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance should have anticipated legislation in that these circulars were sent out before the relative regulations were laid before the House?

Mr. Powell: No. There is no question of people not getting their entitlement.

Mr. Redhead: asked the Minister of Health what recent instructions he has given to local health authorities concerning the issue of welfare food coupons to expectant mothers; and what consultations he has had on this matter with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

Mr. Powell: Welfare food coupons are issued on behalf of my Department through the local offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and not by the local health authorities.

Mr. Redhead: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to an earlier Question, does he not appreciate that the instructions which he has issued have had the effect of denying to expectant mothers the right, which they have hitherto enjoyed, of drawing upon their allotment of vitamin foods in any quantity at any time they liked and that the whole purpose of these instructions was to anticipate an Order which was not made until a month late? Does the Minister believe that the negligible saving which he has thus effected was really worth while for this cumbersome administrative machinery? Does he not consider it an incredibly mean thing to do?

Mr. Powell: Certainly not. There is no question of anyone not getting her entitlement in full. If this House should decide to make a humble Prayer to Her Majesty against the requisite Order, nobody will have lost anything.

Mr. K. Robinson: Why is the Minister being so evasive about this? Will he not make it clear to the House that there has been a change and one which is detrimental to expectant mothers in that they are not now able to get what they were able to get before? We can debate this further when we come to pray against the Order, but will not the Minister make that admission now?

Mr. Powell: On the contrary, it would have been quite wrong, if the terms of supply are to be changed from 1st June, for them not to be different for everyone from 1st June.

Mr. Paget: Is not this attempt to economise on prenatal health foods crazy? Is not the Minister aware that any farmer who treated his cows like this would soon be out of business?

Mr. Powell: This has nothing to do with economising.

Mrs. Slater: Why do it if it is not to economise?

National Health Service (Charges)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health his estimate of the cost that would fall on the National Health Service by providing free medical, dental and optical treatment for children up to the age of 16 years.

Mr. Powell: I have no means of estimating the cost of exempting children's prescriptions from the charge. Apart from this, free treatment is already available.

Dr. Broughton: Does the Minister realise that he and his colleagues in the Government carry a heavy responsibility for the health of the nation? Has he read the article in today's The Times entitled "High Rejection Rate of Army Recruits "? Does he not agree that the proposal contained in my Question would improve the health of the rising generation?

Mr. Powell: The answer to the first two of the hon. Member's questions is in the affirmative. As regards the third, I have no reason to think that proper treatment of children in the medical service will be in any way interfered with.

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health his estimate of the cost that would fall on the National Health Service by providing free medical, dental and optical treatment and free vitamin and other welfare foods for expectant and nursing mothers in England and Wales.

Mr. Powell: I have no means of estimating the cost of exemption from charges for prescriptions or spectacles. The estimated cost of supplying vitamin supplements free would be about £½ million a year.

Dr. Broughton: Whatever the total sum may be, does not the Minister agree that the investment of this money to provide full and free medical care for mothers and the newborn would do much to promote robust health in the people of tomorrow?

Mr. Powell: Full and free medical care are available at the moment.

Hon. Members: No.

Dental Treatment (Holiday Periods)

Mr. Redhead: asked the Minister of Health what steps are taken by his Department to promote and encourage schemes whereby the dentists in any given area shall arrange between themselves that one of their number shall be available within the area, on rota, to give emergency dental treatment at week-ends and bank holidays.

Mr. Powell: Experience indicates that the demand would not justify my Department seeking to arrange formal schemes for this purpose.

Mr. Redhead: If I send the Minister details of a case which recently came to my notice, in which a young man sought to obtain emergency dental treatment for his wife on a Saturday afternoon and succeeded only after hours of inquiry and seventeen abortive telephone calls in finding a dentist available to give the service and then had to take his wife by hired car a journey of six miles, will he look into the matter again and consider the suggestion contained in my Question?

Mr. Powell: I will certainly look at it, but I know that where arrangements for this purpose have been made they have had to be discontinued owing to lack of demand.

Leprosy

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Health how many notifiable cases of leprosy have occurred in the United Kingdom in the last five years.

Miss Pitt: One hundred and ninety-four in Great Britain. In all cases the disease was contracted abroad.

Commander Kerans: Can my hon. Friend say whether the increase in leprosy in this country is due to increased immigration from tropical countries? Can she further say how many leper colonies exist in this country?

Miss Pitt: In reply to the first part of that question, there is no evidence of a direct connection between the increase in leprosy, which is small, and the number of immigrants. We do not know the country of origin or bithplace of patients because that is not required to be stated under the regulations. I am sorry that I cannot answer the second part of the question without notice.

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of Health what was the number of people suffering from leprosy in the United Kingdom at 31st December, 1960, as compared with 31st December, 1959.

Miss Pitt: 248 in Great Britain, compared with 212.

Mr. Pannell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1951 there were only 46 cases of

leprosy in this country? Is she not alarmed at the progressive increase from year to year? Does she consider that some restriction should be placed on the entry of such people into this country?

Miss Pitt: No, that would not be for my Department in any event, but the cases of leprosy are really few, and I am advised that they do not constitute a risk to public health. Moreover, there is adequate provision in this country for treatment.

Dentist, Reading (Patient)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a Reading dentist, details of which have been sent to him, who refused to treat an acute case because the person was coloured; and whether he will introduce regulations making this kind of discrimination illegal.

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the case of a dentist in Reading who refused to treat a patient on grounds of colour; and what action he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of this.

Mr. Powell: I am informed that the dentist concerned authorised no such refusal and that this patient was treated.

Mr. Chapman: Is the Minister perfectly satisfied that all the stories about colour discrimination in this case were unfounded and that the newspaper was at fault in publishing them in the first place? If there is any shadow of doubt at all, will he give his own firm condemnation of such discrimination so that newspapers which publish such stories abroad will realise that very few of us support this kind of thing?

Mr. Powell: I am sure that that attitude is held in all parts of the House, and I can assure the hon. Member that I am satisfied that, as I said, this dentist authorised no such refusal.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) did not do me the courtesy to inform me that this Question about my constituency was being put on the Order Paper? Does he realise that in this case there was a complete misunderstanding, that the


patient who came for treatment did not notify this dentist that an appointment had been made for him, and that the dentist rightly suggested that the person would have to come for treatment because he already had an appointment? Does my right hon. Friend realise that the dentists of Reading do a superlative job for dental health?

Mr. Powell: I am satisfied that there is no question of this dentist refusing treatment on the ground of colour or any other, and that the treatment was given.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Calderstones Hospital

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Health, if, in view of his correspondence with the hon. Member for Salford, East regarding a Salford woman who had been detained for twelve years in Calderstones Hospital, he will set up an inquiry into other cases there to end possible wrongful detentions.

Mr. Powell: The cases of all patients detained since before 1st November last will have been reviewed by the end of next month.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not extremely odd that this young woman, who had never been certified and whose family had constantly sought to free her, should have been released within a few days of the application of a Member of Parliament? Will the Minister receive a dossier from my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) and Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) and myself of a number of such releases obtained recently of people who had been in Calderstones for between twelve and thirty-three years? While I do not in any way wish to blame the medical superintendent, who had been there only a few weeks, does not all this suggest that there are many other people wrongly detained at Calderstones? Therefore, would the Minister consider a special inquiry particularly into the 738 cases who have been there for more than ten years?

Mr. Powell: I have already told the hon. Member that their cases will be, if they have not already been, reviewed before the end of next month. There is

nothing odd about this in view of the fact that this inquiry is required under the Mental Health Act. I will gladly look at any evidence which the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, likes to put before me. There is, however, no evidence whatever that the detention of this patient, who was detained under compulsory powers, was wrongful.

Mr. L. M. Lever: asked the Minister of Health what investigations he has made into the case of Wilfred Boughton, who has been an inmate of Calderstones Hospital, Whalley, Lancashire, for the past 33 years, about which particulars have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: This patient is at present on six months' leave and, unless it proves necessary to recall him, the authority for his detention will lapse at the end of that time. I am writing to the hon. Member about the detailed points which he raised.

Mr. Lever: Will the right hon. Gentleman order an immediate inquiry as to what special medical treatment this man received during his detention, what work he did, what periods and dates he was unable to work and what wages he received for his work? We cannot understand why this man, who is rational and reasonable, should have been detained for 33 years and the information given only a few days ago following the special inquiry which I as Member of Parliament for the constituency made. Will the Minister give us a satisfactory reply?

Mr. Powell: I am not aware that this information was called for before. Certainly had it been called for, there is no reason why previously, any more than now, it should not be forthcoming. This person was detained under the Mental Deficiency Acts. I cannot find that there has been any impropriety at any stage, and, as I have said, the detailed information for which the hon. Member has asked is being made available to him.

Nursing Cadets

Lord Balniel: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in some hospitals the conditions laid down for the employment of young nursing


cadets have not been complied with; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir. I have recently asked hospitals to ensure compliance with the conditions.

Lord Balniel: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the recent questionnaire, which showed that 770 hospitals were employing juvenile hospital cadets, revealed that in some of these hospitals juveniles were being asked to work longer hours than the recommended maxima for adults and that one-third of the hospitals were failing to comply with my right hon. Friend's recommendation that one day a week should be set aside for part-time education? Is he further aware that in some of the hospitals these children are being asked to work at night and are being asked to work in operating theatres and in general wards, all of which is prohibited by his regulations? How will my right hon. Friend enforce his regulations? Will he, for example, consider publishing the names of the hospitals which abuse the regulations?

Mr. Powell: Yes, I am aware of the circumstances to which my noble Friend referred, and, indeed, that is the reason for the issue of my circular. If I have any reason to think that it is not being fully and punctually complied with, I shall call for returns and I shall take individual action.

Mr. K. Robinson: While not attempting in any way to condone the practices of which the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend has complained, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to do anything to discourage the development of these very desirable nursing cadet schemes, which do not receive all the encouragement they might from the nursing profession?

Mr. Powell: One of the main ways in which they can be encouraged is to ensure that proper conditions for these cadets are observed.

County Hospital, Griffithstown

Mr. Abse: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the failure to install a lift at the County Hospital, Griffithstown, is endangering life; and what action is being taken to remedy this situation.

Miss Pitt: The contract for a lift will be let this week.

Mr. Abse: May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary—it is not very often that I can thank her so readily—for such prompt action?

Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport

Mr. Abse: asked the Minister of Health what is the average delay for barium X-rays or enemas for in-patients and out-patients, respectively, at the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport; and what steps are being taken to end the delays.

Miss Pitt: All urgent cases are X-rayed immediately; other in-patients are X-rayed within a week; for non-urgent out-patients there has been hitherto a delay of four to eight weeks, but the recent appointment of an additional consultant radiologist should largely eliminate this.

Mr. Abse: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would be very difficult, since these techniques are used for diagnosis, to anticipate whether out-patient cases were urgent or not? May I express the hope that these arrangements will prove effective, since they may be not only costly as far as beds are involved but quite clearly can be very relevant as far as out-patients are concerned?

Miss Pitt: The new arrangements have mentioned have already brought down the waiting list for out-patients at the Royal Gwent Hospital for barium meals from 271 in October to 38, and the number waiting for barium enemas has dropped from 63 to 48. We expect in a month's time that even this position will still further be improved.

Ashington Hospital, Wansbeck

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Health how many surgical beds were available in the Ashington hospital in the Wansbeck area of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board at the most convenient date in 1961; and what plans exist for a development of this service.

Miss Pitt: Forty-two. The ward block now being built will provide 19 more for general surgery and 18 for orthopaedic surgery.

Mr. Owen: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in 1948 for a population of 99,000 people there were 52 surgical beds in the hospital and that now today for a population of 150,000 there are 42? This is essentially a mining area where surgical beds are top priority. I appreciate the fact that the proposed extension is now on the plans. Will the Minister do all he can to expedite this as a very urgent need in this area?

Miss Pitt: Yes, the new surgical and orthopaedic beds form part of the four-storey block to be completed in March next year at a cost of £250,000.

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Health what progress is being made in the provision of a maternity unit for the Wansbeck hospital area of the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board; and whether he will make a statement.

Miss Pitt: The regional board has included a maternity unit in its plans for the next phase of development of Ashington Hospital.

Mr. Owen: Yes, but as I am informed that plan was included in the regional hospital board's submission in 1954. At the moment, taking the available facilities at the Mona Taylor Home and Beulah House, Blyth, over a period of 13 years, the additional facilities have been six beds. There is an urgent need again for some intensive development for this service in this area.

Mr. Speaker: During Questions hon. Members should be careful to couch their supplementary Questions in interrogatory form.

Operating Theatres

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Health whether he sets down minimum standards for operating theatres which have to be complied with by hospitals under the National Health Service.

Mr. Powell: When designing theatres, hospital boards are expected to follow the recommendations in my Department's Building Bulletin No. 1. They have also received guidance on a number of aspects of the use of existing theatres.

Mr. Emery: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he realises that some of

the older theatres in this country are operating in very strange conditions? Does he realise that in the theatre at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading the sterilising of instruments and anaesthetising all has to be done in the same very small theatre? This is in fact the cornea grafting centre for the whole of Wessex. Does my right hon. Friend not consider that these conditions are about fifty years out of date?

Mr. Powell: Yes, that is the reason why the ophthalmic theatre suite is included in the first phase of the redevelopment of that hospital.

Mr. Emery: I thank my right hon. Friend.

Physiotherapists

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to stimulate the recruitment of physiotherapists for the hospital services.

Mr. Powell: The number of students in training has increased substantially in recent years. From next autumn Ministry of Health bursaries will be available to new students.

Mr. Robinson: Would the Minister not agree, despite this improvement in recruiting, that there is still a serious shortage of physiotherapists? Would he not agree that this is largely due to their salary levels which are low even by National Health Service standards? Is he aware, for example, that many qualified physiotherapists receive less pay than equivalent clerical officers without any qualifications at all?

Mr. Powell: I do not think that that can be the limiting factor, because it is the number of students under training which is the limiting factor. As my hon. Friend told the House a little before, the number of students in training has very rapidly increased, and at the moment most of the schools are full, and there is a shortage of trainers for additional students.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) says is to a large extent true? Is he aware that physiotherapists are not at all satisfied either


with their salary scales or with the methods of negotiating increases in those scales?

Mr. Powell: I understand that there is a proposal for a salary increase before the relevant Whitley Council at the moment.

Mental Hospitals

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what initial steps he proposes to take in furtherance of his recently announced policy on mental hospitals.

Mr. Powell: I shall shortly be sending to hospital authorities a memorandum about the planning of services for the mentally ill.

Mr. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the policy to get rid of out-of-date mental hospitals, which we welcome in principle, has nevertheless given rise to some fears and misgivings on the part of the existing staffs of those hospitals, and will he, therefore, give two assurances, first of all, that there will be plenty of work for all existing staffs to do whatever the setting in which mental patients are treated, as far ahead as one can see, and secondly, that Exchequer moneys will be freely available to develop psychiatric units in or attached to general hospitals?

Mr. Powell: I certainly recognise the importance of the psychiatric units in general hospitals and I shall expect those to feature in the long-term plans which are coming forward in the course of the year. Although the method and the place of mental treatment will, I hope, change rapidly over the years, I have no reason to suppose that there will be any diminution in the amount of effort which has to be devoted to it.

GERMANY (HERR ALFRED KRUPP)

Mr. Millan: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress of the discussions with the Governments of the United States of America, France, and Western Germany on the future of the coal and steel holdings of Herr Alfred Krupp.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that there is

a growing anxiety about the decision to delay by a year the disposal of the bulk assets of the coal and steel holdings of Herr Alfred Krupp; whether he has considered a resolution passed unanimously at the recent annual conference of the Metropolitan Area of the British Legion condemning the decision, details of which have been sent to him; and what steps he proposes to take to expedite the implementation of the agreement in this respect made between Great Britain, the German Federal Government, the United States of America and France.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Mr. Millan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of us are extremely dissatisfied with the lack of progress of the Mixed Committee on this matter, and will he convey to the other Governments concerned that the British Government are still serious about this and do not intend that the provisions of the Bonn Settlement Convention should be frustrated by these continual delays?

Mr. Heath: As the House knows, we are in touch with the other Governments about this subject. I think it is important to be clear about the purpose of the Mixed Committee, which is only that of deciding whether, because of the circumstances and the criteria laid down by the Settlement Convention, an extension for another year should be provided, as was recommended last time. It may be sitting again for this forthcoming year.

Sir B. Janner: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will indicate to our representatives on the Committee that there is a considerable amount of anxiety throughout the length and breadth of the country, that as recently as only a month ago the area committee of the metropolitan area of the British Legion at its annual conference, referred to in my Question, viewed this decision with dismay in a resolution carried unanimously by it, and is he aware that this is not merely a question of the sale but of dealing with the property which was utilised for the purpose of getting slave labour actively engaged in the interests of our enemies?

Mr. Heath: I recognise that these anxieties exist, but the members of this Committee act in an independent capacity and do not take instructions from their Governments.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (STUDY TOURS)

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the terms and conditions subject to which study tours for workers are arranged by the Cultural Division of the Council of Europe.

Mr. Heath: In January, 1961, the Committee of Cultural Experts of the Council of Europe decided to limit the choice of workers for workers' study tours abroad to those working in some cultural field. The decision was not unanimous, the British delegate voting with others against the proposal, and the Committee therefore agreed to review the decision at a full Committee meeting next May.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the fact that trade unions had been previously invited to submit applicants for consideration on behalf of their workers and in view of the support which there is for this scheme, would the right hon. Gentleman press for a rather wider interpretation of the rules in future?

Mr. Heath: As I have explained, we were opposed to the particular course adopted. The reason that it was adopted was that there were more applicants than places available and, therefore, the Committee decided on this form of selection.

DISARMAMENT

Mr. Millan: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will appoint a panel of independent experts to advise him on disarmament problems.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mr. Millan: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that many of us feel that the problems of disarmament are not given sufficient attention in this country? Will he consider taking advice from everyone who can give worth-while advice on the question of disarmament, particularly with the view to drawing up

a detailed plan for disarmament which can go to the United Nations and to our next meeting with the Communist countries?

Mr. Heath: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Foreign Office and other Departments of the Government give the utmost consideration to the disarmament question. We have been in contact with other bodies outside the Departments, and particularly with the Institute of Strategic Studies. We are always ready to take advice and suggestions on this subject from bodies outside.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: If it is of advantage that the Prime Minister should recommend to the United Nations Assembly to set up a body of experts to prepare proposals, why is it not an advantage for Her Majesty's Government to do the same here?

Mr. Heath: I do not think that the two things are comparable. We have our own experts to deal with disarmament, but the whole point of the Prime Minister's suggestion was that it should be a multi-national gathering of experts which should reach agreement and make recommendations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the Lord Privy Seal telling us that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to detailed proposals to put to the United Nations?

Mr. Heath: We have on a number of occasions put very concrete and detailed proposals to the United Nations. I said that we had experts on this subject to deal with these things.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that he does not rely entirely on admirals, generals and air marshals to advise him, because he might as well get the brewers to advise him on temperance?

SUDAN (RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Lord Privy Seal what guarantee for the continued payment of pensions to retired British civil servants Her Majesty's Government obtained when the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan obtained self-government in 1955.

Mr. Heath: In November, 1954, the Governor General of the Sudan was authorised to assure his officials that Her Majesty's Government intended to ensure the security of their pensions by means of a formal agreement to be entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Sudan Government. Unfortunately, despite repeated approaches by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Khartoum, the various Sudan Governments since independence have felt themselves unable to conclude such an agreement. On 22nd April, 1954, however, the first Sudan Government declared that it recognised and respected expatriates' rights to pensions and we are confident that this undertaking will continue to be honoured.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only are Sudanese civil servants' pensions below those of the United Kingdom under the 1959 Pensions (Increase) Act, but the pensioners are very worried about their basic pension, especially as the Sudan is dependent on one crop, and will he bear in mind that if anything should go wrong there might be a considerable time gap when the pensioners might get nothing at all?

Mr. Heath: I will note the point which my hon. Friend has made. I explained to him in an answer to a Question on 22nd February that, despite a number of representations, the Sudan Government had informed us in September that they were unable to make any further increase of these pensions.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the civil servants recruited in Great Britain to serve the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium of the Sudan were regarded as being in the service of the Crown.

Mr. Heath: These officials were not so regarded.

Mr. Tilney: Is not this a very bad advertisement for those who wish to serve Her Majesty indirectly overseas? Was not the Condominium a shared responsibility under the Crown with Egypt?

Mr. Heath: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, this is to a certain extent a technical point, but on the best advice that we have been able to obtain the

situation is as I have described it. The Governor-General held no commission from the British Crown and members of the Sudanese Civil Service were recruited by the Sudan Government. Relations between. Her Majesty's Government and the Sudan Government were effected through the Foreign Office and that is sufficient basis for saying that these officials were not regarded as being in the service of the Crown.

Mr. Paget: In view of the fact that we are in the process of handing over various Colonial Territories to self-government and that it is of tremendous importance that British civil servants should continue to serve, is it not of great importance in cases like this that it should be made quite clear that the British Government stand behind the civil servants and their pension rights? If the Government swindle people in this way, they will not get the service.

Mr. Heath: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member about the Colonial Service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been paying great attention to this matter, as the House knows. The point about this Question is that these servants were not in the same position, for the reasons I have stated, but that does not alter the fact contained in my Answer that Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to arrange with the new independent Government of the Sudan the best arrangement possible and have made representations on behalf of these civil servants about their pensions.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend represent to the Sudan Government that we are exceedingly jubilant and happy about the excellent relations existing between our two countries since independence, but that that jubilation will be prejudiced if fair treatment is not given to that fine band of British servants of their country who did so much to make independence flow so well after the political decision was taken?

Mr. Heath: As I have already explained, we have made representations on several occasions to the Sudan Government, and when a suitable occasion occurs I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

CONGO (ARMY RECRUITMENT)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the recruitment in this country through the Belgian Embassy of a military force to be sent to the Katanga Province of the Congo.

Mr. Heath: I am satisfied that the Belgian Embassy in London has not been recruiting for the Katanga, and no representations have been made.

Mr. Allaun: Was the Minister aware of this recruiting before it was reported in the Press? I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that there was some admission about this by the Prime Minister last week, and if the Government knew about it why did they not stop it earlier? On the other hand, if they did not know about it, why not? Was M.I.5 asleep, or was it too busy chasing school teachers and students with Left-wing ideas?

Mr. Heath: As I said in my Answer that the Belgian Embassy has not been recruiting, so neither of the alternatives put forward by the hon. Gentleman apply.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Has the Lord Privy Seal not seen the reported account of the activities of the assistant military attaché, which has never been denied?

Mr. Heath: I have seen them and they have, indeed, been denied. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the account which I have here in the Daily Herald, he will see that it was an offer of service filled in by the gentleman concerned as a technical assistant for civilian employment.

EGYPT (PAYMENTS)

Mr. Wall: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the progress which has been made in desequestrating property of British nationals by the Egyptian Government; how many British nationals have been allowed to take capital out of Egypt under the terms of the financial settlement; and when he expects to be able to finalise the claims for compensation.

Mr. Heath: According to our latest reports from Cairo, 4,875 applications

had been submitted up to 28th February, 4,238 applications had been accepted, and 3,053 Release Agreements had been signed or were ready for signature.
I cannot say how many British nationals have made transfers of capital under Article V of the Financial Agreement, because there is no obligation on the persons concerned or on the Government of the United Arab Republic to supply this information to Her Majesty's Government.
Claims for compensation cannot be finally dealt with until all property formerly under sequestration has been returned and the owners have submitted all claims for compensation that may arise to the Foreign Compensation Commission. I cannot say when this will be.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that the terms of the Agreement are being observed and that British nationals have been allowed to take out the £5,000 to which they are entitled? Can my right hon. Friend give some idea when all this matter will be cleared up? Is it not a fact that the Egyptian Government and the British Government would welcome a final settlement of these claims?

Mr. Heath: I am sure that we should all welcome a final settlement but the difficulties are well known. There have also been certain difficulties in the actual administration of this Agreement. These are under discussion in Cairo between members of the U.A.R. Administration and Sir George Rendel who has gone out from the Foreign Office for that purpose.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not a fact that all kinds of difficulties are being put in the way of a settlement of these claims by the Egyptian Government and other authorities in Cairo? Is it not intolerable that the British Government should have been dealt with in this way?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Member is going too far in saying that difficulties have been put in the way but certainly in the operation of the Agreement there have been snags which we are trying to remove.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In the cases which have been dealt with, would my right hon. Friend say what the sum was in relation to the sum claimed and whether he is satisfied with the difference?

Mr. Heath: If my hon. Friend will put that question on the Order Paper I will try to answer it.

ICELANDIC FISHERY LIMITS

Mr. Wall: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement about recent negotiations with the Icelandic Government over fisheries limits.

Mr. Heath: The Icelandic Parliament on 10th March approved the proposals agreed between our two Governments for settling the dispute. The Exchange of Notes bringing the settlement into force accordingly took place in Reykjavik on 11th March. Copies of the Exchange of Notes embodying this settlement have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Wall: While welcoming the settlement of this rather long-standing dispute between two allies, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend can say anything about outstanding claims made by the Icelandic Government against British trawlers alleged to have been fishing inside the 12-mile limit during this period?

Mr. Heath: I am glad to say that the Icelandic Government have announced a waiver of past charges since April, 1960, when the last waiver was granted.

Mr. Crosland: Will the right hon. Gentleman observe that this agreement which appears to be for a 12-mile limit is in fact for a limit nearer 20 to 30 miles when the base lines are taken into account? What assurance have we that the Icelandic Government at the end of the three-year interim period will not put forward further claims extending, for example, to the complete Continental Shelf?

Mr. Heath: It is true that the limit is affected by the four base line changes which I announced when the agreement was proposed. As for the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, he has a Question later on the Order Paper on that subject.

UNITED NATIONS FORCE

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will consider giving instructions to the United Kingdom representa-

tive at the United Nations to propose that plans be prepared for the creation of a United Nations force to which member States would be asked to make a contribution, including recruits enlisted by the United Nations, the costs of which would be met out of United Nations funds and the control exercised by that organisation.

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government support the principle of a United Nations permanent force, while recognising the practical difficulties of administration and financing that such a force would create. This has been stated at the United Nations and also in the House on a number of occasions. But the establishment of such a force would require a wider measure of agreement than is at present forthcoming.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a good idea? If it is, why does he not press it?

Mr. Heath: It is a good idea. We have pressed it, but we have not yet had full support for it.

Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend also agree that a directly recruited international force would prevent contingents being withdrawn at the whim of national Governments?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. That is one of the advantages.

Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that objections to this proposal have been made by some Commonwealth Governments, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say if an attempt is being made this week to reach agreement on a general Commonwealth approach at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?

Mr. Heath: As the hon. Member knows, discussions of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference are always confidential.

Mr. Shinwell: In spite of the apparent difficulties, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these are not always insurmountable and could he not press the case?

Mr. Heath: Yes, when a suitable opportunity occurs.

NEPAL (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal why the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been visiting Nepal.

Mr. Heath: My noble Friend was in attendance on Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Hughes: Could the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether sufficient care was taken of the security precautions? Is he aware that the Foreign Secretary was attacked by a tigress and might have been eaten if he had not been protected by 326 elephants and 500 men? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Foreign Secretary is more dangerous here than in Nepal? Is it true that the Foreign Secretary has been awarded the "insignia of the She Rhinoceros"?

Mr. Heath: I should not like to discuss any of the figures mentioned in this case, and I think that in the last part of his supplementary question the hon. Member has missed the target as well.

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal why he did not inform the leader of the French delegation to the recent talks in London on European economic problems of his new proposals for British association with the Common Market.

Mr. Heath: My statement to the Western European Union Ministerial Meeting on 27th February did not contain anything on this subject which had not been said in the talks with German and Italian officials, and reported by German officials to the French officials. Information about my speech was given to the leader of the French delegation himself at the beginning of the talks with the French officials on the same day.

Mr. Healey: In view of the absolutely decisive importance of the French Government's position on these issues, is it not really the greatest blunder that the French Government delegation were not acquainted with these proposals in time to have a serious discussion on them in

London? Even if the right hon. Gentleman is not interested in keeping his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in full touch with the proposals, surely the French Government are in a most important position here.

Mr. Heath: The French Government are in a most important position and everything possible was done to keep them informed. As I have said, the leader of the French delegation was told and the French Government realised, as we both did, when the date was fixed for the visit of the French officials, that it was the same as that for the W.E.U. meeting.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is it not time that the Government stopped shilly-shallying and came out with a statement that we desire to negotiate entry into Europe?

Mr. Heath: The Government have not in any way shilly-shallied. They are exploring the possibilities with other Governments of finding a basis of settlement. With a problem as complex and difficult as this, that is bound to take some time, but it is better that we should do it in this way than that we should risk failure in negotiations by starting without preparation.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties that private Members of the House, particularly on the Government benches, have on this complex topic is that we have no knowledge of the attitude of Commonwealth Governments to the latest British suggestions for association with the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend cease to regard that aspect of matters as entirely confidential and publish statements from time to time about the prevailing attitude of Commonwealth countries in this matter?

Mr. Heath: It is for the Commonwealth Governments themselves to express their views about any proposals which might be made. From time to time some Commonwealth Ministers have done so. Recently two have expressed their views in their own countries.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 9th March.]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN FIRST SCHEDULE TO NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, 1957.)

Amendment moved [9th March], In page 3, line 12, col. 2, leave out "2s. 8½d." and insert "1s. 11d.".—[Mr. Houghton.]

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I was in the middle of a sentence on Thursday night when the Guillotine came crashing down at half-past eleven. For some minutes before that there had been so much commotion and ribaldry from the Government benches that I was having difficulty in making myself heard. It is very likely that in those circumstances the force and cogency of my arguments in support of the Amendment escaped the notice of many hon. Members opposite, and I should probably be justified in starting my speech all over again. However, the Guillotine is still hanging over us and we shall be feeling the tug of the gag throughout the rest of the day. Therefore, on this side of the Committee we have to arrange our time to the best advantage.
The Amendment, which is a simple one and is the first of nine which seek to reduce the increases proposed in the First Schedule, relates to employed men and proposes to reduce the increase in the National Health Service contribution to the lowest possible within the rules of order—an increase of ½d. from 1s. 10½d. to 1s. 11d., whereas the figure proposed by the Government is 2s. 8½d.
The arguments that I was using in support of the Amendment are the general arguments against increased contributions for all classes of contributor. We shall have an opportunity later in the day to debate the Motion, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill", and we shall

then have an opportunity of deploying further arguments against the increases as a whole. In those circumstances, and since hon. Members opposite will today probably be more Lobby fodder than participants in the debate——

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Rude.

Mr. Houghton: —the best thing to do is to get them on the move now and keep them on the move.
Therefore, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to bring the debate on this Amendment to a very early conclusion. We can then move on to discuss a group of contributors about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) will have something to say.
I propose, therefore, to register the dissent of my right hon. and hon. Friends from the increase for employed men and to ask the Committee to consider against these increases all the arguments that have been used in earlier stages of the Bill against the Government's proposals in general.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): While we have all enjoyed the short speech which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has just made, I think that all of us on this side of the Committee enjoyed even more the speech, even though it was frequently interrupted, which he made last Thursday evening.
I think that we should like to condole with the hon. Gentleman, possibly, on the fact that his leadership of the party opposite has been such a short one. If hon. Members refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings last Thursday night they will see that when the hon. Member for Sowerby was speaking my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), with his accustomed moderation and courtesy, said, in an intervention to the benches opposite:
Where are your leaders? Where is little Hughie?
The hon. Member for Sowerby replied:
At the present moment, I am the leader on this side"—.[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March; 1961; Vol. 636, c. 838.]
I would remind the hon. Gentleman, whom hon. Members on all sides hold in great esteem in this Committee, of the


closing chapter of a famous Victorian novel, "Vice Versa", when Dick and his father resume their accustomed places as father and son and one of Dick's scapegrace friends says to him, "Goodbye, old boy. Like the Serbian Crown, eh? Always a happy reminiscence."
The hon. Member for Sowerby has reminded us this afternoon of the fact that the combined effect of this Amendment, with others in the name of the hon. Gentleman, would be to reduce the proposed new amounts of the Health Service contributions for everyone except employers to the existing amounts of the contributions plus ½d. for an employed person and a penny for a non-employed person. The hon. Member has rightly and fairly pointed out to the Committee that this would be a wrecking Amendment designed entirely to defeat the main purpose of the Bill. I will not say anything about the discussion in Ways and Means, but we had a very full discussion of the Bill on Second Reading. In effect, we had another fairly full discussion of

the principle of the Bill on one of the Amendments to Clause 1, and on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". If we make progress with our present Amendments we can have a further discussion, in effect, on the principle of the Bill on the Question, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill", and we have, of course, all Thursday of this week for the remaining stages of the Bill.

Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Sowerby, and would say that I am not sure that it would be wise for the Committee to have yet one more discussion of the general principle of the Bill on this Amendment. I support what the hon. Member for Sowerby said and suggest that the Committee might care to come to a decision on this Amendment straight away.

Question put, That "2s. 8½d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 142.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[3.39p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Iremonger, T. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Dance, James
Jackson, John


Arbuthnot, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
James, David


Balniel, Lord
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jennings, J. C.


Barber, Anthony
Duthie, Sir William
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Barlow, Sir John
Eden, John
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Barter, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Batsford, Brian
Emery, Peter
Kerans, Cdr. J. 8.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bell, Ronald
Farr, John
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Fell, Anthony
Kershaw, Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Finlay, Gnome
Kitson, Timothy


Berkeley, Humphry
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lagden, Godfrey


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Fraser, fan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lancaster, Col. C. C.


Bidgood, John C.
Freeth, Denzil
Langford-Holt, J.


Bishop, F. P.
Gammans, Lady
Leavey, J. A.


Black, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Leburn, Gilmour


Bossom, Clive
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bourne-Arton, A.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Green, Alan
Lindsay, Martin


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimston, Sir Robert
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Brains, Bernard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Longbottom, Charles


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Longden, Gilbert


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Loveys, Walter H.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harvey Anderson, Miss
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hastings, Stephen
McLaren, Martin


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hicks Beach, Ma). W.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cary, Sir Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)


Chanson, H. P. G.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B. O. Norfolk)
MacLeod, John (Roes &amp; Cromarty)


Clark, Henry (Antrim N.)
Holland, Philip
McMaster, Stanley R.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hollingworth, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Cooper-Key, Sir Niell
Hornby, R. P.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Cordeaux. Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Madden, Martin


Cordle, John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Maginnis, John E.


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Maitland, Sir John


Costain, A. P.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Marshall, Douglas


Coulson, J. M.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Marten, Neil


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Cunningham, Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald




Mawby, Ray
Prior, J. M. L.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mills, Stratton
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Montgomery, Fergus
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rees, Hugh
Turner, Colin


Morgan, William
Renton, David
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Morrison, John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nabarro, Gerald
Robertson, Sir David
Vane, W. M. F.


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Roots, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Noble, Michael
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Nugent, Sir Richard
Russell, Ronald
Wall, Patrick


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Sharpies, Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Shaw, M.
Watts, James


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Whitelaw, William


Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Speir, Rupert
Wills, sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wise, A. R.


Peel, John
Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Percival, Ian
Storey, Sir Samuel
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Studholme, Sir Henry
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pitman, I. J.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Worsler, Marcus


Pitt, Miss Edith
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)



Pott, Percivall
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Mr. Gibson-Watt.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Albu, Austen
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Peart, Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Popplewell, Emest


Beaney, Alan
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benson, Sir George
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Probert, Arhur


Blackburn, F.
Holman, Percy
Randall, Harry


Blyton, William
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hoy, dames H.
Reid, William


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrya (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Edward


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N-)


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cliffe, Michael
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, Percy
King, Dr. Horace
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, John
Ledger, Ron
Stones, William


Crosland, Anthony
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lipton, Marcus
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Logan, David
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Ifor (Cower)
MacColl, James
Sylvester, George


Deer, George
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy. Hugh
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Timmons, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Tommy, Frank


Edelman, Maurice
Marsh, Richard
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Mason, Roy
Warbey, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, Tudor


Finch, Harold
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fletcher, Eric
Monslow, Walter
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, D. J. (heath)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, LI (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oswald, Thomas
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
Owen, Will
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grlmond, J.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Caine Valley)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Irving and Mr. Redhead.

Dr. Horace King: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, column 1, after "including", to insert "widows and"

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for


Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the names of other hon. Members, in page 3, line 27, at the end to add:

s.
d.


11. Employed widows between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment
1
5

Dr. King: That would be convenient, Sir Gordon.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) for inviting me to move this Amendment. In view of what the Financial Secretary has just said, I say to him that we on this side of the Committee are very proud of the leadership which my hon. Friends are giving us from the Front Bench in this battle against the Government's bad Bill. While my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby may have been only temporary leader of the Opposition on Thursday night, for about 14 minutes, it is certainly true that he has been our leader for a number of years now on questions of social insurance, and we are proud of the able leadership he shows in all our debates on them.

Mr. Nabarro: Much better than little Hughie.

Dr. King: I do not propose to take any notice of the interruptions made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has tremendous ability, but who defeats his own cause and does Parliament no good by some of the interruptions that he indulges in in serious debates.
The part of the Schedule which we are discussing excludes from the payment of weekly contributions women over the age of 60 who have ceased to be employed. Our Amendment would similarly exclude all widows who work from such payment, and for the first time it would give a benefit in British law, even if small, to all widows. As I hope to show, all other insurance benefits which are given are given to different groups of widows of varying ages. The second Amendment is much narrower and would cut down from 2s. 0½d. to 1s. 5d. the contribution made by all working widows. The aim is, first, to give at least a modicum of benefit to all working widows and, secondly, if the second Amendment is accepted, to give a benefit of 7½d. to working widows.
I do not wish to repeat the general arguments which we have continually advanced throughout the debates, except to say that they apply to widows especially, because most widows are poor. Throughout the Committee stage, we have been seeking to isolate groups to whom the new poll tax means special hardship. Our general case against the poll tax, as everybody knows, is that it is paid equally by rich and poor. The two Amendments seek to pinpoint a group which, with very few exceptions, consists of poor women—the widows of Britain. I count it an honour to move the Amendment, because from time to time I have tried to call attention to the needs of the British widow.
Let us look, first, at the general picture of widowhood, which is a complex picture. First, there are the widows of men who died before July, 1948. They are divided into two groups. First, there are those whose husbands were insured under the old contributory pensions legislation and who might get a flat-rate contribution of 10s. a week. They are the so-called 10s. widows—10s. which, despite our efforts, has never been changed throughout all these last years of the so-called affluent society. On the other hand, if the husband died before July, 1948, and was not paying under the old contributory pensions schemes, we have the second group who get no widow's pension at all, the so-called no-shilling widow.
Those are the first two groups and those groups are ageing. They must work to live, unless they go to the National Assistance Board, and if they are working, already most of the 10s. that they get—if they are lucky enough to get even 10s. a week goes in their National Insurance and National Health Service contributions. We seek to exempt those getting 10s., or no shillings, from the new charges, and if the Amendments were carried those widows would benefit by 2s. 0½d. a week.
Then there is the second great group of widows, those who were bereaved after July, 1948. They fall into three groups. First, if the husband paid a minimum contribution of less than 150 stamps, that is, if the widow had been married only a short time, that group is entirely excluded from State benefit. Up to a point, the whole Committee will


accept that, for we could not contemplate keeping the young widow indefinitely. There is no difference between us about that, although I hope to show that the case I am making can be applied to those young widows, too.
Then there are widows under the age of 50. They get widow's allowance of £4 a week for the first thirteen weeks, to tide them over the economic and spiritual crisis of bereavement. If they are under 50 when their husband dies, after that thirteen weeks they get nothing, unless they have children. Such a widow, like the young widow, after thirteen weeks would have to go out to work in order to live.
Then there is the group over 50 when they are bereaved. They get £4 a week for thirteen weeks and after that continue to get £4 a week. But I hope that no hon. Member will say that in a society in which, we are told by the Government, the average worker's income is £14 a week, £4 a week is a sum on which the widow can keep herself. Even those widows over the age of 50 will have to supplement their pension by some kind of work if they are to live at all decently.
The third great group of widows consists of those with children. The widow with one child get £4 a week plus 25s. for the child. Widows with more than one child get 17s. for each extra child. To gather those groups together—we have a group getting no shillings a week from the State; a group getting 10s. a week; a group getting £4 a week; the widowed mother with one child getting£5 5s.; and the widowed mother with two children, £6 2s.; and so on.
I am the first to admit that during his long period in office the Minister of Pensions has steadily stepped up improvements for the groups I have mentioned. He has raised the widow's allowance and especially the allowance for widowed mothers and their children. But even under this Minister, the 10s. group and the no-shilling group have had nothing.
In these great groups there are widows of various kinds. Most of them go out to work. They have to go out to work. They are allowed to earn another 71s. a week before they start whittling away their pensions. That means very little

to the no-shilling and 10s. widows, but it may mean something to the widow getting £4 a week and who then earns another 71s. a week.
In 1951, there were 2½ million widows. That is a frightening figure. Many of those widows lost their husbands in the defence of Britain in either world war. Of that 2½ million, more than 1 million are over 70, so we can ignore them from the point of view of the debate. There are 400,000 who are over 65, and we can ignore them, because they are not caught by the Government's poll tax. About 350,000 of them are over 60, many of them having to work. We have about ¾million widows who can gain any benefit from what we propose in our Amendment, if they go out to work and pay insurance contributions. In that ¾million there will be some of each of the categories which I have mentioned, and of course some who do not work and will not benefit from this Amendment.
The 10s. and no-shilling widow group must be a rapidly diminishing one. In the nature of things, their husbands having died before July, 1948, they are rapidly approaching the age of 60, and on to 65. If they go over 65, even this Minister does not want a poll tax from them.
4.0 p.m.
I also ask the Committee to note that as long as the widowed mother has children to look after she gets children's allowances and widow's allowance, but that that all goes when the children grow up, except for the widow's allowance; and sometimes they may even lose their widow's allowance if they were under 50 when they lost their husbands.
I have often spoken in the House on the depth of the tragedy of widows; the sudden descent from comfort to poverty with the death of the bread-winner; and the limited kinds of work available to widows, especially older widows, and those without any previous experience of outside work except the noble work of bringing up a family.
Motherhood is a full-time job. My daughter, who is bringing up two children, does a hard day's work at home, and she could not possibly go out to work. I cannot imagine how the widowed mother manages to cope with her task when she has to go out to work


to supplement the allowance for doing what she ought to be doing, and what the State ought to encourage her to do, the full-time job of looking after her children. Thousands of widowed mothers with young families have to go out to gain some money to supplement the allowance we give them.
It is extremely hard for a widow to have to go out to work late in life. Having given her energies to bringing up a family, it is extremely hard for her to go out to seek work at the age of 50 or 55, with the alternative of living on £4 a week. Moreover, most of the part-time jobs which women can get are drudgery jobs, and most of the full-time ones are those which nobody will take on unless economic circumstances compel them to do so. They are badly paid, with long hours for the money earned. I believe that we need a widows' trade union—just as we need a married women's trade union—to protect widows, and especially ageing widows, from being exploited by employers in their desperate need for money.
In the debates in this House I have always pressed the tragedy of widowhood per se, and the fact that we ought in some financial way to recognise widows' needs. The Amendment provides a chance to do a little good. It must be galling to the widow who receives 10s. a week from the State to have to pay most of it back—8s. to 9s.—to qualify for the other National Insurance benefits. Next month she will have to pay a stepped-up National Insurance charge, and if the Amendment is not accepted she will have to pay 2s. 0½d. for National Health benefits. By the Amendment we seek to relieve her of a bit of her National Insurance burden.
Moreover, most of the widows who go out to work, or to part-time work, even with the best possible grants which they can get from the State, and with the best possible jobs, fall into the group whose incomes are so meagre that every increase in the flat-rate contributions means a real hardship. The 2s. 0½d. which we are seeking to reduce may not seem very much to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is a very real sum indeed to most of the widows whom I know, who are living on depressed income.
The main Government case for the general increase in poll tax is that average wages are now up to £14 a week. That is a fallacious argument. If it is true that wages are up to that extent, the Government could easily get from those who have had the wage increases, the profit increases and the dividend increases the extra bit which they need by stiffened-up graduated taxation. That would ease the burden on those who get less than the average wage. Even if it is true that the average wage is £14 a week, it is not true that the average wage of widows is anything like that figure. Nobody can argue that as the nation's prosperity has increased, and as we have moved away from the war, widows have adequately shared in that increased prosperity.
I know that the Treasury is opposed to creating new categories; of hiving-off any new category for taxation exemption. It does not like such grouping, and it says, very often rightly, that it is hard to define a group. It is even possible that the Financial Secretary will argue that, although I have stated what is generally true of widows, there are a handful of rich widows who would benefit, and that it would grieve him very much not to collect their contributions. But even if it is true that there is a handful of rich widows in the category we seek to exempt, it is much more true that in the flat-rate contribution which the Treasury is imposing on all the British people there are millions of people who, because of their poverty, ought not to pay the extra sum.
Here is a clearly defined group in which almost every member is in the low income group. The widows, and especially the widowed mothers, are doing a noble job under grave handicaps. There can be no hon. Member on either side of the Committee who does not know from personal experience the noble work done by widows. They are an inspiration to the whole country. I therefore ask the Government to ease them at any rate of this burden. I pay tribute to what has been done by the Government in other respects, but I do not think that they have done enough. They could accept the Amendment and bring a little benefit to the widows.
Apart from the first tragic thirteen weeks of widowhood, recognition has


never been given to the simple fact that the widow loses the best half of her life; that on top of great sorrow she faces great deprivations; and that for the rest of her life she faces a bitter struggle, doomed in all cases never to achieve the standard of living she enjoyed when she was happily married.
One of the finest things about the Retired Police Officers' Association has been the way in which, during the last few years, it has fought on behalf of the dead comrades of policemen. It has gained some remarkable successes. In a letter to the Minister of Health, on 8th February, the Association protested bitterly against all new charges, including this one, and said:
It is not justice further to depress widows and pensioners who are compelled to conform to the principles of taxation both direct and indirect out of their miserably low means.
Unfortunately, there is as yet no organised national body to voice the claims of widows. Apart from the efforts which people like the police officers make, there is as yet no spokesman and no organisation which can speak for and press their rightful demands. That is why I am happy to be able to do it in this debate.
I urge the Government to accept this Amendment and make the concession which we seek, because it is worth while. Last week, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) said that he thought that we had reached the limit of poll tax. I suggest that the limit was reached for widows a long time ago. If the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment, in the years ahead when we open the new hospitals which have been promised by the Minister of Health, invitations to the opening of one of them should be sent to the no-shilling widows, the 10s.-widows and the £4-a-week widows, because, by their enforced contributions, the widows of Britain will have paid for one of those hospitals.
Were this Amendment accepted, it would not solve the economic problem of the widows, any more than the Amendment moved last week on behalf of those earning £9 a week and under would have solved their economic problems. But it would help. Much greater assistance is needed than we can give merely by cutting down the cost of

their insurance stamps. But this Amendment would help, and the help which it would give would be the greatest for those whose incomes are the smallest. That is not only good Socialism; it is good human justice, and ought to appeal even to the occupants of the Treasury Bench.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), the group of people whom we are trying to help are unorganised. Much of the assistance which has been given to the old-age pensioners would never have been accorded had they not organised themselves, and it would appear that this group of people should organise themselves and make their voices heard.
My hon. Friend referred to widowed mothers. No one in his right senses would say that a widowed mother with, for example, two children to look after, who is in receipt of £5 a week, could possibly be doing her duty to herself and to her children and keeping up an adequate standard of living. Every woman whose husband dies finds that her standard of living is reduced, but most of them have to carry on facing the same responsibilities which they previously shared with their husbands.
Some have to take over the buying of the house and others must face the task of continuing to pay the rent. All must buy the necessities for the household and often this has to be done with a standard of living which brings them below the poverty line. A widow with children has the added responsibility of ensuring that her children are able to take advantage of any further education facilities for which they have the ability.
4.15 p.m.
These widows are compelled to go out to work—they have no alternative—if they wish to keep their home going. Even with the increased assistance, it is not very long before a widow who goes out to work finds her pension is taken away because the earnings allowance is so small. We must remember that the no-shilling widow or the 10s. widow already face a great disadvantage. Every hon. Member of this Committee has received complaints from widows, and


particularly from the 10s. widows, for whom representations are repeatedly made to us. The only answer we can give is, "There is not much which can be done for you".
Today, we are trying to help this large group of people. We are asking that something shall be done for them at a time when more and more women are being asked to go out to work. The Government are inviting former members of the teaching and nursing professions to come back to work; they are begging them to come back. The widowed mother who goes out to work has also to rush home to get a meal ready, do the shopping, keep the house tidy and see to the sewing, mending and darning in the same way as every mother has. We may be told that there are many women who do this, but we must remember the great responsibility which a widow has to bear of being the only person responsible for the running of her home. She must face the fear, the worry and the sorrows of widowhood.
Last week, when we sought to reduce the contribution for another class of people, we were taunted and told that a reduction of 2s. 8½d. represented little more than the price of 10 cigarettes for that class of person. But in this case the 2s. 0½d. which we are discussing is very important to people in the low income group. It may make the difference between whether the Sunday joint is meat of the best quality, or whether the family has to make do with a few chops. It can make the difference between whether a widowed mother can afford to buy fruit for her children, or the salads which they should have; and 2s. 0½d. represents a considerable amount of bread or milk.
The acceptance of this Amendment would accord some measure of justice to this group of people. Not only have we an economic duty to them, but we also have a moral responsibility and I ask hon. Members opposite, in view of that moral responsibility, to ensure that the Amendment is accepted.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Of all the Amendments which have been moved from this side of the Committee during the proceedings last Thursday and today, this probably is the one most worthy of sympathy from the Government. We have not had very much sym-

pathy up to the present, but we hope that at least this will appeal to them.
We have had Amendments about the aged, the young and those with under £9 a week. Now we come to a section of the community which probably finds it most difficult to get along. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is a section of people who not only find themselves on very small incomes, but who, in a vast majority of cases, have to make considerable adjustments in their standard of life because their husbands have died. That itself imposes a very great strain and considerable hardship on the women concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) was quite wrong in saying that the type of job available for the widowed mother is usually a low-paid job, such as that of a school cleaner. She has to do that kind of work in order that she may also look after her home while supplementing her income.
We have not been told what this Amendment would cost if it were accepted. I should doubt very much whether it would cost more than £2 million, judging by the figures which have been given by the Treasury Bench in respect of other categories. It might help if the Economic Secretary would give the figure now. It places the Committee at a disadvantage if we cannot be told now how much it would cost. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could nod to indicate whether £2 million is right or wrong. Surely when £49 million is being collected under these proposals, there would be room for the Treasury to manœuvre.

Mr. Houghton: May I appeal to the Economic Secretary to assist the debate by giving us the answer which would help my hon. Friend and the rest of the Committee? He need not save the answer until the end of the debate. We should like to know now.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): If it will help the Committee, I shall certainly answer. On the basis of these two Amendments, which I think is narrower than the arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), the cost would be about £300,000 a year.

Mr. Willis: No wonder the hon. Gentleman was hiding the figure until


the end of the debate. It is almost unnecessary to debate this matter at any length.
Surely, for a matter of £300,000, the Government are prepared to do justice to one of the most deserving sections of the community. That sum could not hold up the great programme of hospital building which is held out before us. What would happen if the Government did not get this £300,000? I cannot see that anything would happen. The Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Force would drop £300,000 into their laps and think nothing of it. Millions of pounds are nothing to those people. This is a paltry £300,000 to do justice to a very deserving section of the community.

Mr. Charles Pannell: One could get that amount in a football pool.

Mr. Willis: Surely the Economic Secretary will not resist this Amendment on the ground that it cannot be afforded. The only other reason I can see for resisting it is the one which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, that the Treasury does not like to have special classes. I cannot see why we should not have special classes, for there are special classes of people. To refuse to recognise that is to refuse to recognise the society in which we live, the pattern of that society and the hardship suffered by certain groups in it. If a particular group has to suffer hardship as the result of what we do in This House, we should put it right whether the Treasury likes that or not.
Surely we are not to be told that this cannot be afforded out of a Budget of £300 million or £400 million, or that we cannot create special categories. A very good case has been made on the ground of hardship in respect of these widows. In the light of what has been said, I hope that the debate will be shortened by the hon. Gentleman springing to the Dispatch Box to tell us how much he welcomes the Amendment and that he is glad to assist the Opposition in doing their duty in trying to protect the weak.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not see how the Government can resist the eloquent and very human appeal made by my hon. Friends the

Members for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater), and the unanswerable argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on statistical grounds.
On the humane argument, there is no doubt that, although this is regarded as a comparatively negligible sum by financial and statistical experts who are used to thinking in terms of millions of pounds, it comprises a definite hardship for very poor people. This concerns people we meet on buses and trains when we are coming to the House in the morning, such as cleaners, who do very useful drudgery work for our civilisation. I suggest that if the Government are to give any concession this is the occasion on which they should do so.
I remember that many years ago, before public assistance committees were heard of, I served on a Scottish parish council. There we considered the means of very poor women who, when their husbands were killed in the mines, were called upon to do cleaning work in the local school. Often there was great difficulty because there was competition for these jobs. To clean a school or an office was very badly paid work. I do not know the actual income of these people, but I do know that they have every right to object to the new imposition made by this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North was right in stressing the grievance of the 10s. widow.
I was surprised that the Economic Secretary had to be enticed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), or almost conscripted, to rise to explain what the Amendment would mean. He had to be drafted to rise to his feet to say what it would cost. He knew that £300,000 is such a paltry sum that there must be a feeling of shame in resisting the Amendment. The £300,000 is about the same as that which goes to the Privy Purse in the Civil List. Taking other items into consideration, this Amendment is one which my hon. Friends are justified in bringing before the Committee. It should be accepted by the Government.
4.30 p.m.
Comparisons cannot be avoided. Why is this amount of £300,000 in extra contributions being asked for? It is to pay


the other bills of the Government, to pay part of the £1,600 million which we shall have to consider tomorrow. So the widow's mite is being taken in this way. I hope that the Government will be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I hope that the next time the Minister rises to the Dispatch Box it will be to announce that he has decided to exercise common sense and humanity and to satisfy what I believe to be the overwhelming opinion of people in the country on this issue.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I want to support the Amendment. I was interested in the argument used by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) about the comparison that is always made about this extra contribution costing two cigarettes or a packet of 10 cigarettes. This argument has gone on for many years, but everybody appears to forget that the price of cigarettes has gone up substantially. That is especially hard if one's income is very small; and we are dealing here with a section of the community whose income is very small.
A school cleaner, which case has been used as an illustration, has a particularly difficult time. Only last week I put a case before the Minister in which a widow was working as a school cleaner and had to go off duty ill. As a result of that, she will get a little extra insurance benefit, but the Ministry deducts the 10s. pension she is receiving as a widow. That seems to me to be rather mean and contemptible, but it is upon that section of the community that the Government propose to make this added imposition.
Surely, when one considers the tremendous sums of money which are dealt with by the House of Commons, it is difficult to understand why the Government are resisting this Amendment, because it is quite obvious that the Government will resist it. The Economic Secretary has already disclosed that this concession would cost only £300,000 per annum, and, realising that that was all that was involved, if the Government had any intention of accepting the Amendment, the hon. Gentleman would have done so with alacrity. What will he argue when he replies?
It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,

Itchen (Dr. King) that it is very difficult to divide sections of the community into categories. In other words, it is difficult to single out this particular type of contributor from all the others. I would point out to the Minister that we do this very thing every day, either in connection with the incomes of people or the insurance contributions which they pay, because we have a graded contribution for different sections. All that we are asking here is that the Minister should go a step further to deal with what is perhaps the most deserving class of contributor whom we shall he considering during the proceedings on the Bill
I appeal to the Economic Secretary to help this very small section of the community, which is perhaps the most hard hit section. I hope that he will allow a little humanity to enter into the discussion, that he will now rise and say that the case put is so overwhelming that he is willing to recommend that the Government should accept the Amendment, and thus exclude this category, who are already in very great difficulty because of the burdens which the Government have imposed upon them.

Mr. William Ross: I am surprised that the Economic Secretary did not rise a long time ago and say that he accepted this Amendment, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, if there is any Amendment which they should accept, this is it. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) put a most comprehensive and most convincing case, and I was indeed sorry that we did not get an immediate response from the Government.
Let us look at this case. The only widows who are penalised by being asked to pay the additional sum of 8d. per week in respect of this contribution are those who are contributors under the National Insurance Acts. That does not mean all widows. It is not to the advantage of all widows to pay full insurance, because there is nothing to gain from it. If they get a pension already or a widowed mother's allowance, which will become a pension, they have nothing to gain by insuring against unemployment benefit. If they were unemployed, they would not get anything because they get a widow's pension, and it is the same


with sickness benefit and retirement pension. These are the widows whom we seek to help.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to acquaint themselves with the people who are being affected by their legislation. I have a feeling that one of the reasons why we get the Guillotine on a Measure like this is because it shortens the discussion, and, therefore, the process of educating, not only back benchers but sometimes Ministers as well, on what their Bills actually mean and on the people who will be affected by them, is thereby equally shortened. Sometimes, I think that that is the real reason for the Guillotine.
The position is that, although there are about 500,000 widows in any one year receiving widows' benefits of one kind and another, when we start to analyse the figures we find that, of that ½million, there are about 100,000 who receive only 10s.—that is all. There is a considerable number who do not receive anything at all, and who are not even recorded in the statistics of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It is only when we see just who are contributing and paying full insurance that we get the complete picture.
The number of people paying full insurance as employed persons is 190,000, and, obviously, most of these are widows with 10s. or no pension at all. There are 20,000 self-employed widows, and they will be asked to pay on the new rates an additional 6d. There are the non-employed widows, numbering 30,000. When we examine these figures, we find that, out of a total of just over 200,000, 140,000 are between the ages of 45 and 59. This is the important point. These are the widows, and the only widows—the worst-off widows, from the pensions aspect—who are being asked to pay this extra amount. The widows with a pension do not pay it; the widows with no pension do pay it.
How can hon. Members opposite defend this kind of thing? In this affluent Britain, is this the only way in which we can build our hospitals? I find it very difficult to justify, in logic, why we should build hospitals in this way at all, but I find it even more difficult to justify why certain categories of people are to be made to pay while others are

not. There could be no real social justification for what is being done, but this is what is to happen.
I would ask the Economic Secretary to appreciate exactly what class of widow is involved here. I appeal to him in another way. The only widow who will benefit by paying full insurance is the widow with a war pension, because that is the only duplication of Government payments that can be made. Therefore, the war widow who works to acquire for herself an additional pension at 60 is also singled out for this payment. Can hon. Members opposite really justify that? This is meanness carried to its limits. It is shabbiness. I am sorry to say that in social legislation it is Toryism. That is the philosophy, "Let's get the money, and let's not ask the House to spend too much time examining where we are getting it." I am quite sure that if hon. Members opposite realised how this money was being raised they would find it very difficult to support the Government's proposal. I hope that the Economic Secretary will give us a reasonable answer. and will say that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Barber: I am sure that all hon. Members, particularly those on his own side, will agree that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) moved the Amendment not only with his usual modesty, but with obvious knowledge of the subject matter. The purpose of this Amendment and of the Amendment that we are considering with it is to reduce the contribution paid by employed widows from 2s. 0½d., as the Bill proposes, to 1s. 5d.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has just said that the Committee should consider with care what widows are involved. That is very important because the hon. Member for Itchen said, if I heard him aright, that all widows might benefit, but I understand that these Amendments are confined only to employed widows. Therefore, all we are considering at present are those widows in employment.
This is important, because the Amendments do not relate to all widows.——

Dr. King: When I spoke of "all widows" I meant all widows in the category, which I gradually narrowed down.

Mr. Barber: I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. We are considering, then, only those widows who are in employment.
The second aspect which is of great importance is that if these widows are receiving National Insurance benefits, or if they are war widows, then, although it may pay them to pay National Insurance contributions, they are, in fact, under no obligation to pay and, consequently, under no obligation to pay the National Health Service payments.
One hon. Member took as an example the widow with children who had to go out to work——

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman has just said that if they are in certain categories these widows are under no obligation to pay the contributions. Will he also say that they do not receive benefits and may want to pay contributions so that they may receive benefits?

Mrs. Slater: Would not the Economic Secretary also agree that it is very much more important that a widow should pay the full contributions than it is for a woman who has just married and whose husband is living?

Mr. Barber: I do not say for a moment that there are not a limited number of widows who choose to pay the contributions because it is to their advantage, but I made careful inquiries about this and I am informed that, in practice, nearly all the widows who are in receipt of these benefits, or are war widows, choose not to pay because, in general, it is of no advantage to them. I went into this very carefully, because I wanted to satisfy myself whether or not this was so——

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the statisics I used were not accurate? They were taken from the Quinquennial Report of the Ministry of National Insurance.

Mr. Barber: Obviously, I cannot, without notice, comment on the hon. Gentleman's figures. All I can tell him is that my inquiries have led me to the conclusion—and I have no doubt about this—that nearly all those widows who are in receipt of National Insurance benefits, or are war widows, choose not to pay the contributions because it is of no advantage to them to do so. That is important,

because we have to realise that we are here dealing only with widows in employment and only those who choose to pay, assuming that they are in receipt of National Insurance widow's benefits or are war widows.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked about cost, and I gave a figure of about £300,000. The reason for that figure being so limited is that we are concerned with such a limited number of people—and I will come in a few minutes to deal with what I consider to be certain implications of that, because this aspect cannot be considered in isolation.
4.45 p.m.
Who are these widows who are in work, but not in receipt of National Insurance widows' benefits of one kind or another? Normally, a woman who was widowed after the beginning of the National Insurance scheme and has children to support is entitled to National Insurance children's benefits, and would not be obliged to pay a contribution. Similarly, a woman widowed before the National Insurance Scheme came into operation, but who had eligible children to support at the beginning of the scheme would also be entitled to National Insurance benefits and, consequently, would not be obliged to pay the contributions. It follows that the only widows who are covered by these Amendments are those who are obliged to pay contributions, and some of those who are employed but who, in general, do not have children to support.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East asked why we should not make a special class of these individuals, while the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) said that he was sure that I would refer to administrative difficulties. I would ask the Committee to consider this as a matter involving some principle. A quite tenable view prompts one to ask: why should this limited number of individuals to whom I have referred be put in a special class, and separate from the spinsters? If these Amendments were accepted, so that there would be the benefit of a lower rate of contribution for widows who are working, I fail to see why one should not extend the same reduced rate of contribution to spinsters. Ever since the 1946 Act, it has always been thought that these two categories of people should be treated on a, par——

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and I am trying to follow it as well as I can. There is a very distinct difference in principle between widows and spinsters. In very many cases the widow is seeking to maintain a home for her children and is deprived of the double allowance for taxation purposes that she would have had if she had had the enjoyment of her husband. On the other hand, spinsters are very often living with parents or with other people and are in quite different circumstances. While I have every sympathy with the hard-hit spinster who may have to maintain a home for aged parents, and who, in some ways, is in a similar position to widows, the very many widows who have to maintain a home and are deprived of the husband's allowance for taxation purposes are very much worse off than the spinsters. It is wrong to consider the two classes as being identical.

Mr. Barber: I am not saying that they are identical. I am saying that it would not be right to provide for a lower rate of contribution for one class without doing something for the others. We cannot consider this aspect in isolation. When we think of the consequences of accepting these two Amendments, we cannot think simply in terms of about £300,000.
The widow who goes out to work to help to support her children is normally in receipt of National Insurance widow's benefits in respect of those children and, consequently, she has the option of not paying contributions at all, and in general it does not benefit her to pay them. I am not making a political point, but it is fair for the Committee to remember that under the 1946 Act the health element in the National Insurance contributions was the same for all employed women, whether widows or spinsters. I believe that that principle, which is the principle which we are now following, is right and fair.
We all know from our own experience, not as Members of Parliament but as individuals, of the sorrow which arises from widowhood, but I am not satisfied that that in itself is an argument for accepting these two Amendments. As I have said, they relate only to employed widows, and when we are considering the impact of the Bill it is surely right to consider their earnings. The hon.

Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) referred throughout her speech to widows who went out to work—quite rightly, because they are the people whom we are considering.
As I am sure the Committee realises, there are no earnings figures which apply only to widows, but, while making due allowance for the fact that widows earn less than other women, on the average—that is my view—we can, nevertheless, bear in mind that the average earnings for women of 18 increased between October, 1948, just after the health scheme came into operation, and October, 1960, by £3 13s. 10d. a week. The average earnings virtually doubled in that period.
Making due allowance for the fact that some widows have not shared to the full in that increase—in my view the average widow has not—I still think it fair to ask the Committee whether it is not reasonable to propose an increase in the Health Service contribution for widows which will make it only 1s. 6d. a week more than the health element which was paid under the 1946 scheme.
As I have said, no change in principle is involved in the Government's proposals. I do not believe that it would be right to make this concession without going further and without dealing with other people, too, including spinsters; and I do not believe that it would be right to make such a concession. The basic principles which have existed since 1948 are right. The simple question which the Committee has to consider is whether a widow who is in work should pay 1s. 6d. a week more for the health element in her contribution than in 1948, or whether she should be relieved of this increase, bearing in mind that the average earnings of women have risen considerably since that time.
I do not believe that the Government's proposal is unreasonable, and, consequently, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Slater: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I point out that last Thursday I gave figures of the average wages of most women and showed that nearly all were less than £7 a week. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these women are almost forced to pay the full contribution because the only way in


which they can get full benefits, should they fall ill—and their tendency to be ill is greater than with other people because of the heavy strain on them—is by paying the full contribution?

Mr. David Weitzman: I listened with amazement to the Economic Secretary's reply. I have never heard a meaner and more contemptible argument by the Government. Earlier, I listened to speeches by my hon. Friends, and I suggest that if the Government benches had been filled by those hon. Members who, shortly, will troop into the Committee to vote against these Amendments, those hon. Members would have been sympathetic towards the case which we have made. The only answer by the Government was, "Do not differentiate between widows and spinsters, because you will find that spinsters are in an equally bad state. As spinsters are in an equally bad state, we therefore should not help widows".
Having heard the case put by my hon. Friends, how can the Government refuse to accept Amendments of this character? There can be no doubt whatever about the difficulties which widows experience compared with other sections of the community and no doubt whatever that a most deserving case can be made for them.

Mr. Barber: I want to make it clear that the reason that I referred to spinsters was that I was trying to indicate to the Committee that the figure of £300,000, which it would cost to accept these Amendments, was not a realistic figure for the Committee to take into account.

Mr. Weitzman: I do not care what the figure is. The Economic Secretary must recognise that it is very small compared with the £49 million which it is intended to raise by this poll tax. The amount involved in this small class must be extremely small. I suggest that anyone who has listened to the case which has been put forward must readily recognise how deserving it is.
What frightens me about this legislation is that hon. Members who have not heard the case put forward, who know nothing about the details and who have not heard a word about the hardships which will be inflicted upon these people will support the Government in this

mean and contemptible attitude. That is disgraceful.

Mr. Loughlin: I was not surprised at the stumbling which went on by the Government spokesman when he was replying to the debate. The Committee ought to pause at this stage and to ask whether there is not a serious challenge to the very basis of the form of Government which we are supposed to have in this country because, irrespective of the arguments advanced in the Committee, there is a rigidity on the part of the Government Front Bench which compels them to refuse to consider accepting any Amendments.
The Economic Secretary admitted that these Amendments will cost £300,000. He went on to talk about the possibility of having to include spinsters, if we give preferential treatment to widows, even if it were only those widows who are working. I can understand the hon. Member's partiality for spinsters but, having listened to him advance the argument about spinsters and having listened to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) which demolished his case altogether, I cannot understand why he intervened when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) argued the case for widows.
It is not good enough for the Government spokesman to talk about employed widows who have no obligation to pay contributions. What the hon. Member said, in effect, was that if we raise the contributions high enough we shall preclude people from paying them. If we believe in the Welfare State—I know that the hon. Gentleman does not—it is our duty to see that insurance cover is applied to the majority of people, whether widows or not. Experience proves that widowed women in employment pay the contribution for one good reason—they want to have the cover of the insurance benefits. I do not for a moment accept the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument that widows in industry do not subscribe to this insurance scheme.
5.0 p.m.
I think that there is general acceptance—and I want to reiterate it—of what my hon. Friend for Westhoughton said about spinsters. If it is argued


that the spinsters are just as badly off as the widows, then the case is not that the widows should not have some consideration, but that they should both have it. It is a valid argument to advance that widows are maintaining a home for their families, even if their children are growing up, whereas the average spinster—perhaps the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will correct me if I am wrong—is invariably living in lodgings of one kind or another, without family responsibility.
The total cost of this concession is alleged to be £300,000. What is the function of this Committee? It is to try to make the Bill, whether we like it or not, more equitable for everyone in our society. The Economic Secretary ought to recognise that, where there is the possibility of an injustice being done, he should accept the Amendment. What worries me is the fact that in Bill after Bill, whether it be upstairs in Committee or on the Floor of the House, we repeatedly see this adamant attitude on the part of the Government, in no circumstances being willing to accept any Amendments irrespective of the arguments deployed in favour of them.
Unless hon. Members opposite wake up to the fact that without discussion, compromise and willingness on the part of the Government to accept Amendments of this type, we shall be entering a form of totalitarianism, and that will be for the ill of this country. I should like to see fewer speeches from hon. Members on this side of the Committee and hon. Members opposite advancing arguments. It may well be that they would be arguments to refute what we say, but at least they would be arguments—legitimate arguments. Unless hon. Members opposite do that we are not really having a Committee stage of the Bill at all.
I should like the Economic Secretary to stop fumbling and stumbling at the Box. If he cannot come with a brief that is worth while, then he should remain seated and allow some of his hon. Friends to advance those arguments that should be advanced.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: I, too, was very disappointed at the reply given by the Economic Secre-

tary. Our great complaint against the whole of the Bill, and, in fact, against the majority of the proposals which we claim are undermining the Health Service, is that they are designed to hit those people who are least able to bear the additional financial burden. Surely what we are discussing this afternoon is a clear example of that sort of thing.
Once again, the widow, who, after all, is trying to be independent and trying to help herself, is to be penalised. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee frequently receive letters from widows who are finding things very hard these days. I did not receive a letter from a widow this weekend, but I was approached by one on Saturday, and, once again, listened to the heart-rending story that she had to tell. After hearing that story, and after listening to the fine case put this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) when moving the Amendment, to have to listen to the reply made by the Economic Secretary was a great disappointment.
We are told that this concession would cost about £300,000 out of a total bill of about £50 million. Had we not wasted such vast amounts of money on Blue Streak and other projects—I must not develop that, because, otherwise, I shall be ruled out of order, though I want to make the comparison—many more widows and those in the lower income groups could have been helped. Although £300,000 may not be much as far as Government expenditure is concerned, the additional coppers that widows are being asked to pay mean quite a lot to them. They will have to pay an additional 7½d. a week.
I should have thought that this Amendment was the least that the Government could have accepted. Many other Amendments moved from this side of the Committee on Health Service Measures have been turned down out of hand, but I should have thought that this was really a case where it would not have been difficult for the Government to accept our Amendment. It is not too late for them to do so even now. I remember that last week the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who is not now in his usual place, quoting a passage from the Book of Jude. I should like to quote a passage


from the Gospel of St. Mark, where it says:
For he that hath, to him shall be given; and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.
That is the philosophy which the Government are adopting in rejecting this Amendment. They are taking away from the poor widow who is trying to help herself and who is trying to be independent. I appeal once again to the Government Front Bench to have another look at this matter. We shall soon have Easter here—it is Lent now—and it would be a splendid thing if we could get this one crumb from the Government.

Mr. J. T. Price: I rise to express my own bitter disappointment that the Government have not seen fit to agree to this relatively minor concession for which we are asking. It is quite obvious to me and to every other intelligent hon. Member who has taken part in these debates why the Government wanted the Guillotine to operate on the Bill. They wanted it because, knowing that they could not defend by logical argument the case we should present against the Bill, they wished the clock to do what their own intelligence and power of argument could not do.
As he knows, I have personal respect for the Economic Secretary. I was very sorry indeed to see him put in the position this afternoon of having to speak from the paltry brief he has to defend something quite indefensible in any terms of Parliamentary procedure. I am not anxious to exaggerate anything, because the facts speak for themselves, but the Minister referred to the fact that women's wages, including widows' wages, have increased substantially in recent years. This may well be so. Of course, they must go on increasing in relation with the cost of living which is always increasing as a result of the Government's policies. But let us not have it suggested that there is something which can be called the "average widow" which can be statistically measured and given as evidence in the House of Commons to defend a Measure which is quite indefensible
The Minister mentioned a figure of £7 a week. Has he forgotten that a great many widows who, because of their circumstances, are forced to go out to work

cannot work full-time? They are often women who have to dodge about, doing charring and all kinds of odd domestic work so that they can be home after school hours to make their children's meal and be at hand to help them when they return home. It is nonsense to describe as average women widows of this class who are, very often against their own better instincts, driven to go out to work to maintain their children who have been deprived of a father.
In some cases, widows may take advantage of the provisions in the National Insurance Act which allow them to opt out of insurance payments, but it is a very bad thing for anyone to opt out of insurance. Only the pressure of economic circumstances compels many of these women to opt out. I have had considerable experience in the trade union world, and it has always been the policy of my trade union, so far as I was able to influence it in any way, to advise all our people, whatever their circumstances, to maintain full rights of insurance.
What is the position of these widows if they take the cheap insurance and pay only for industrial injuries benefit? If they are out of work, or if they are sick, they are deprived of benefit as a right and they have to go to National Assistance. It is just those widows who will go out to work against their own feelings, putting up with all the difficulties and inconvenience of doing so to keep a home together but yet be able to be there when their children come home from school, who will not wish to go to National Assistance.
I have been present during a very great deal of our debates so far, and all that I have heard from the Government side has indicated that there is an underlying assumption on the part of the Minister of Health and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury who are advising him—this is a Treasury Bill, after all—that, if people do not like it and they find themselves in deep water, they can go to National Assistance. I tell the Minister frankly that in my part of Lancashire there are very many people who shrink from any necessity to go to the National Assistance Board. Anything which puts pressure on our people to resort to National Assistance goes against their independent spirit.


They may be wrong in taking that attitude. They can have National Assistance as of right, and I pay my tribute to the many improvements which have been made over the years in the administration of National Assistance, but I hope that the Minister will take it from me that there are still many people of the old tradition who will not seek National Assistance even when they are right up against the wall.
The clock is ticking away and the longer we take now the more likely will it be that other important matters may not be discussed, yet the Minister tells us, apparently quite seriously, that even after the Government have claimed a tax of £49 million from the British people under the Bill they cannot afford to give about £250,000 back to a deserving section of the community. This will not do. We have made our protest. The Guillotine will come down and, as my hon. Friends have said, hundreds of hon. Members within the precincts will, blindly and quite unthinkingly, troop into the Lobby to vote against us without any understanding or knowledge of the merits of the case.
The prestige of the Government is low enough in all sorts of ways, apart from this Bill. If they had any sense, they would give way occasionally. They would be less inflexible and more prepared to meet a genuine case when it is presented to them. If they did so, their reputation would at least be less tarnished in the minds of many with a progressive outlook on life than it is.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: Why do the Government want to wring the last penny out of the most deserving and, probably, the lowest-paid section of the community? I just cannot understand it. There was no logic at all in the argument which the Economic Secretary put to the Committee this afternoon. The inference is that this is just another 7½d., just a few more coppers. He does not understand the sort of life which widows have to live. On a Thursday or a Friday, it may well be that there are only coppers in their purse.
I myself know of one widow who was quite unable to get the medicines prescribed for her because she had not a single copper in her purse. What does

the Economic Secretary say to that?—that she can afford to pay another 7½d.?
The truth is that neither she nor thousands of other widows can afford it. There are hundreds and thousands of widows quite unable to pay the additional 7½d. or, if they do pay it, as they apparently will have to, something else will have to go. The Economic Secretary may not understand just what they will go without. It is quite surprising what some women can do with even a few coppers.
I appeal again to the Government. If they wish their Bill to find some favour, they ought to make a gesture for widows. The amount of money involved, £300,000, in comparison with the £50 million or so which is to come in by this poll tax, is really negligible. Why cannot the widow be excused? There can be no argument for it at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hilton) quoted one of the Gospels. I shall not quote the Gospels, but I am reminded of the story of the widow's mite. Even that is being taken from her. I hope very much that the Economic Secretary will tear up the brief which has been provided for him. Will he allow his heart to prevail? He may get into trouble, but at least he will earn the good will of many people in the land.

Mrs. Alice Cullen: Is the Minister under the impression that widows go out to work for the fun of it? If so, the sonner he gets that idea out of his head the better. Widows with children go out to work not for the fun of it, but because they must do so. In my own family, one of my daughters is a widow. She has to provide for six children. She could not do so without going out to work. The sooner the Economic Secretary realises that and does the right and just thing by the widows the better.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am rather dismayed that on an important Amendment like this there is not enough stuffing among hon. Members opposite that one of them is prepared to get up and try to justify what the Government are doing.

Mr. Charles Curran: have made three attempts to speak in this debate. When the hon. Gentleman stops speaking, I will be glad to speak.

Mr. Manuel: I am glad that I have stimulated some courage, thought and initiative on the benches opposite. I hope that the contribution of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) will be a bit better than that of the Economic Secretary, who made very heavy weather of trying to answer the cogent and strong arguments put forward by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and on the back benches in trying to assist widows who are working.
Throughout the Bill what we have been trying to do by every Amendment—it was inevitable that we should try to do it—is to get some amelioration and relief of the situation of the weaker sections of the community. We must have a better argument from the Economic Secretary in reply than the one which has already been advanced. He reminded me of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who tried to repel the arguments which we advanced on behalf of the old-age pensioners. We are getting to a stage when, whatever argument we may use, no reasoned logic is applied to our arguments.
There have been no concessions made on the Bill. Anyone who has been present in the Chamber, or anyone who has listened intelligently to our discussions in Committee must admit that we have not had a reply to the strong arguments which have been advanced by us. Not one hon. Member opposite has tried during our discussions on the Amendment to justify the case which the Government say they have for imposing this further 7½d. on the widows.
It may appear to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that 2s. 0½d. a week is not a great sum for a widow to have to find. But they must have their constituency problems and get definite proof of people living in the direst of bad conditions because they have to scrimp and save every halfpenny and to make do with the cheapest of food. Certainly, we on this side have had this proof. The widows are in that category.
The things which have been said outside this Chamber by hon. Members opposite are just not true. The Tory Central Office of Information has given very misleading information about this Bill.

Mr. Ellis Smith: How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Manuel: I have been concerned in a little controversy in my local Press with the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). Bolstered up by the Tory Central Office information, he tried to reply at great length to what I had said. First, he said that the Labour Government started the prescription charges. He admits that that was wrong, but then he goes on to say:
Anyone on National Assistance can get an automatic refund of any charges paid, and anyone else in need can also get a refund.
I hope that the Economic Secretary will explain that statement—"anyone else in need", whatever the need. It is a block statement. Then he says:
Those who are ill or unemployed do not pay contributions and neither do widows …
The Economic Secretary is bound to admit that that statement is false. By this Amendment we are proving conclusively that widows do pay.
We refer to the 10s. widow. Whether she is working or not, she has to pay this contribution each week. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary is bound to know that many widows cannot go out to work. It would be interesting to know the proportion of 10s. widows who have to pay this 2s. 0½d. a week when they are sick in order to qualify for the retirement pension and how many of them have their contribution covered by National Assistance. I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will answer that. What a ridiculous situation it is that we should regiment people through the Bill and then pay the contributions of certain of them from another source. Are the Government trying to humiliate people by holding out a begging bowl——

Mr. Barber: I cannot understand some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be suggesting that someone on National Assistance should pay contributions. That is impossible. No one on National Assistance pays contributions. The hon. Member was talking about health charges. What we are concerned with here is nothing to do with that. He was also speaking about widows who could not


go to work. These Amendments are concerned solely with widows in employment.

Mr. Ross: Is the Economic Secretary aware that every 10s. widow must contribute——

Mr. Manuel: That is what I am saying.

Mr. Ross: —whether she is working or not? If she is not working, she has recourse to National Assistance. In that case, National Assistance may well be paying for the stamping of her card.

Mr. Manuel: A card has to be kept so that she may——

Mr. Barber: It is important that we should get this matter right. As I understand, if a person is on National Assistance her card is credited, but she does not pay and does not draw a sum from National Assistance with which to pay.

Mr. Manuel: No, but say, for instance, that the widow——

Mr. Ross: May we have the assistance of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, who was at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for quite a time? She could decide whether the Economic Secretary or myself is right.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. I wonder whether you, Sir James, could give us some guidance. A very important matter has been raised in connection with this Amendment, and it now appears that the Government Front Bench does not know anything about it. In view of this ignorance of the Government Front Bench, what can we do about the matter under discussion?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): That is neither a point of order nor a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for debate.

Mr. Manuel: I do not want to aggravate the point of difference between the Government and ourselves. What I am certain about, as the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary must be certain, is that the 10s. widow has to pay the increased contribution.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt) indicated assent.

Mr. Manuel: If a widow has to get National Assistance, her card will be credited with that amount. If she went to work, she would have to pay, but whether she was at work or not and if she had only 10s. coming into the house without National Assistance she would have to pay. The Economic Secretary cannot get round that, no matter how much he tries.
The Government Front Bench is in this difficulty. The hon. Member for Barrow, who always jumps into the breach — [HON. MEMBERS: "NO — Barry."] I am sorry; I hope that I am not slandering anybody. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is strangely lacking today. I hope that we shall have his assistance, along with that of the hon. Member for Uxbridge, who says that he will spring to attention when I sit down and will introduce some false courage and reasoning into the debate.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Curran: With some of the speeches which have been made on behalf of the Amendment, I have a great deal of sympathy. Furthermore, if this matter could be considered in the abstract, I should be happy to vote for the Amendment. So far from approaching it in any spirit of hostility, I approach it with the greatest sympathy. But I suggest that the arguments that have been advanced from the Opposition benches in favour of the Amendment illustrate vividly a basic defect of the Welfare State. That State is based, among other things, upon an assumption about the economic position of women and, in particular, about the position of widows which does not correspond with reality.
Hon. Members opposite know as well as I do that the Welfare State was constructed on the observed assumption that widowhood is not of itself a disability and that a woman who loses her husband does not thereby become somebody who ought to get the support of the community. That assumption has been common to both political parties. It has governed the Welfare State since the end of the war. It is an assumption, as we all know from our constituencies, which is not accepted as valid by large numbers of women. I am astonished that the organisations which set out to speak on behalf of women have not challenged it vigorously a good many years ago. In spite of emancipation and sex equality, it remains


a fact that for the ordinary woman, marriage is a career and that when she loses her husband, she is in the position of a man who suffers the loss of his job or who suffers an industrial injury.
The Welfare State, however, is not constructed on that basis. It was constructed, with the support of the Labour Party—this has nothing to do with the Tories; the Labour Party has stuck to it since the war—on the basis that a woman who loses her husband is not thereby entitled to be treated in the same way as a man who suffers an industrial injury. It can well be argued that she ought to be so treated. If it were argued, I believe that that proposition would command the enthusiastic support of the great majority of women voters.
That, however, is not the assumption. Consequently, all the arguments to which we have been listening are based upon a completely false premise. The Opposition now seeks to argue that we should treat widows as people who are in a special category because they are widows. If that proposition is argued in general terms, I have the greatest sympathy for it and, as I have said, I believe that the great majority of women voters would support it, too.
We cannot do this by a side-wind. We cannot do it by an incidental Amendment. If we want to do it, we must make a radical reconstruction of the Welfare State. [Interruption.] One moment. I have listened to a great many words from the benches opposite and I invite Members there to let somebody from this side put his case without being bawled down and without being jeered at. I have given careful and silent attention to the speeches of hon. Members opposite and I invite them to do just as much for me and my colleagues. We have a case, too. So far from being apologetic about the Bill, so far from being dumbfounded by it and ashamed to speak un for it, we have a case. It is a case with merit and substance. We are entitled to put it.
I believe that all the debates on the Bill, including the point now being discussed—whether being a widow is a state which calls for special sympathy in a way that being a widower does not—illustrate one basic fact. It is that the assumptions on which the Welfare State was set up at the end of the war are

assumptions which do not correspond with contemporary reality.
I believe—I want to say this plainly and, perhaps, brutally—that we ought to reconstruct the Welfare State, the Health Service and the other social services, too, for the purpose——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of widows.

Mr. Curran: Exactly, Mr. Thomas. I was putting the point parenthetically; I did not propose to develop it. I was saying that the need for reconstructing and for revising the basic assumptions of the Welfare State, a need in which I believe profoundly, is illustrated by the Amendment. The assumption on which we are arguing is an assumption that most of us regard as nonsense.

Mr. Manuel: I should like the hon. Member to answer this. I think he would agree that hon. Members opposite could today take a definite step forward by saying that, while we are not relieving widows entirely, we agree that their payment of 1s. 5d. is sufficient and that we will not increase it by another 7½d.

Mr. Curran: That allows me to go on and develop a point which I want to make. When we talk about widows, just as when we talk about other groups who receive the benefits of the social services, we are talking about people at all income levels. There are rich widows, well-off widows, poor widows and almost destitute widows. [Interruption.] I ask hon. Members opposite to allow me to put the case. When the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) was putting his case, I did not keep on barracking him. I kept quite and listened.
The point which the hon. Member has put to me lets me go to the root of it all. If we are distributing a universal concession, we shall be giving it both to the people who need it and to those who do not. I believe that we should reconstruct the Welfare State, both in this matter and in other matters, so as to concentrate every farthing we can upon the people who need help and to let the others look after themselves. For that reason also, I am not prepared to support the Amendment. It would distribute a benefit indiscriminately to widows who do not need the money as well as to widows who do
I am urgently in favour of two things: first, of giving the utmost possible help to the hard-up widow and, in particular, to the hard-up widowed mother. Secondly, I am in favour of re-examining the foundations of the Welfare State in respect of this matter so as to treat widowhood—as, in fact, it is—as a disability which should be compensated in the same way as industrial injury for a man.

Mr. Houghton: Mr. Houghton rose

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Houghton.

Mrs. Slater: Before the hon. Member sits down, will he, therefore, say in plain English that he agrees with the Bow Group that even in this case there should be a means test and that that is the basis of the Welfare State?

Mr. Curran: If I may reply in detail, I shall be happy to do so. I refuse to be bullyragged by this turnip ghost of the means test. We are told told by the Opposition that we cannot distinguish between the people who need help and those who do not unless we raise the ghost of the poor law. This is their constant cry. This is the kind of emotional blackmail in which the Opposition constantly deal. [Interruption.] I am sick and tired of this dishonest blackmail about the poor law. I insist that in our society we ought to be able to distinguish between the people who need help and the people who do not, without going back to the poor law. [An HON. MEMBER: "In all sections?"] Yes, in all sections. After all, we need not go to the poor law or even to the Assistance Board. We could go to the Inland Revenue——

The Temporary Chairman: Is the hon. Member reaching the end of his reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater)? I had called the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. Curran: I have one sentence, Mr. Thomas. I did not want the Committee to suppose that I was not prepared to meet this taunt about the means test. I think I have demonstrated that there is an answer to it. Having said so, I will

gladly sit down and listen to what hon. Members of the Opposition have to say.

Mr. Houghton: I am sure that after two hours the whole Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) for turning a one-sided argument into something of a debate. The hon. Member said that he had listened to our arguments with a good deal of sympathy. His hon. Friends have listened to them with a good deal of silence. Had we had contributions from hon. Members opposite earlier in the debate, we might have had a much more satisfactory two hours on this matter.
The hon. Member said that he has a case and that he is entitled to put it, and so he is. It is a very different case from that put by his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. Had we the time, it would be interesting to see how far the two cases—the Front Bench case and the Uxbridge case—could be reconciled. I remind the hon. Gentleman and indeed the whole Committee that the Guillotine overhangs the whole of this debate.

Mr. Nabarro: There is a long time yet.

Mr. Houghton: There may be a long time yet, but there is a great deal to do in that time. I know that there are many hon. Members sauntering about the Corridors, looking to 11.30 when this debate must automatically come to an end, but we wish to debate other groups concerned with this Bill in the time remaining.
The Economic Secretary needs no reminding that his reply was grievously disappointing to my hon. and right hon. Friends, but I will say to the hon. Member for Uxbridge that we cannot in this debate on this Bill reshape the whole structure of widows' benefits in the Welfare State. It may well be, and we believe it is, desirable, for the position of the widows to be reconsidered in the light of contemporary conditions in Britain today. The position of the widows has been looked at several times since the Labour Government had responsibility for the National Insurance Scheme and laid the social security measures. I do not believe that we have got the answer right yet, but at the moment we can concern ourselves only with whether we should provide relief


to a certain group of widows by this Bill.
It is true that right from the inception of the present scheme widows have been divided into several categories, some of whom have been regarded as deserving of more liberal support from the Welfare State than others and some of whom have not been regarded as deserving of permanent help from the Welfare State at all, but that conception comes under challenge when the burden to be imposed on widows reaches the point when it seems to be unreasonable, having regard to the position of widows in the labour market in Britain today.
We have to consider what type of widow we are seeking to relieve of the National Health Service contribution. Let me remind the Committee that the National Health Service contributions we are talking about are governed by National Insurance contributions devised under different conditions and for different objects, and they are an additional tax on the health of widows.
There are many things challenged in the arrangements for our Welfare State. The Government have selected the contributors to the National Insurance Scheme as taxpayers in these contributions to the National Health Service—[An HON. MEMBER: "Regardless of income."] regardless of income, regardless of the conditions under which they contribute to the National Insurance Scheme. We shall be coming in a moment to another group of people—I refer to married women—some of whom contribute and some of whom do not, under the National Insurance Scheme. The reasons which govern whether they contribute or do not contribute have nothing to do with claims on the National Health Service but only to their interests and benefits under the National Insurance Scheme. The Treasury waylays them and says, "I am a tax gatherer disguised as a contribution collector and I impose on you contributions to the National Health Service".

Mr. Barber: I take it the hon. Member is not saying that, under the Labour Government, National Health contributions were not provided as part of the expenditure of the National Health Service?

Mr. Houghton: I am not going to start on that one now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have refuted that suggestion time and time again in these debates, and I did it as recently as Thursday evening. I do not propose to spend Guillotine time, which is precious to us on this side of the Committee, in examining that proposition any further.

Mr. Barber: I shall be brief, but I should just like to ask the hon. Member to deal with the passage in the White Paper presented to Parliament by the Labour Government in 1946 about the Health Service, when it was said that the National Health Service has to be financed partly from the Exchequer, partly from local rates, and partly from the help which National Insurance contributions will give.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to read my speeches in previous debates on this matter. There he will get the answer.
I want to come to grips with this problem of the widows, and what I am saying is that we can deal under this Bill only with the relief to be given to those who are contributors under the National Insurance Scheme, because they are the only people on whom this tax falls. We acknowledge that we are dealing with widows who are contributors under the National Insurance Scheme. If they do not contribute they do not pay National Health Service contributions. So we can do nothing for them under the Bill. As for the position of widows generally, we would have to do it otherwise. We were debating these matters when widows' pensions and benefits were under discussion last autumn. That was when the Government made certain proposals to improve the position of widows and when we urged them to go further than they did.
At the moment, however, we are concerned solely with relief to be given to certain widows who are contributors under the National Insurance Scheme because they and they alone suffer this additional National Health Service contribution. The hon. Gentleman should realise that this batch of widows are mostly those who were widowed before they had reached the age of 50 and had


no young children at the time and therefore had no widow's pension after the initial period of their widow's allowance. We are also dealing with those who began as widowed mothers and whose children left school before the mothers had reached the age of 45, and who, therefore, get no widow's pension. When the last of their children reached school-leaving age the widowed mother's benefit ceased and the widowed mother's allowance ceased with it. So in those circumstances she has now no benefit at all and she has obviously to maintain herself and must go out to work, and if she goes to work as a widow she becomes a contributor to the National Insurance Scheme and, as a contributor to the National Insurance Scheme, she has this additional National Health Service contribution placed upon her.
We are also dealing with the 10s. widow whose husband died under the wrong scheme. Had her husband died under the new scheme she would have been more favourably placed for widow's benefits. She has to go out to work unless she has other resources and is not in receipt of any widow's benefit which exempts her from paying contributions. We have tried in this Committee again and again to improve the position of the 10s. widow and we have been defeated every time.
Take this block of widows who go out to work. They are, therefore, middle-aged widows. They have had their working lives interrupted by widowhood. Since the hon. Gentleman can never become a widow I do not hope to convince him that there is all the difference in the world between widowhood and spinsterhood. Many of these widows had their family lives disrupted; their working lives had been interrupted earlier on. They had to recover some kind of position in the field of employment and, as several of my hon. Friends have pointed out, many of these widows were at a great disadvantage in their earning capacity. They had lost their skill. They had, in many cases, little ability to earn a reasonable rate of pay.
I would remind the Committee that it is almost three years to the day since a similar Question was before the Com-

mittee on the 1958 Bill, when Mrs. Jean Mann, a respected Member of the House and then Member of Parliament for Coatbridge and Airdrie, made a most moving appeal to the Committee in support of more consideration for the widows upon whom the National Health Service contribution would be imposed. We made no impression on the Government Benches then, and it does not look as though we are making any impression on the Government Benches now.
The starting points on the two sides of the Committee are poles apart. On the other side of the Committee, the Government have introduced this Bill to impose charges on all who come within the Schedule. The Government say that all should pay; we are against any one within the Schedule paying additional contributions. The Government say all; we say none. That is where we start. That fundamental argument has not yet been resolved and cannot be until we come to the Third Reading. In the meantime, we can seek relief for particular categories whom we regard as harshly treated under the Government's proposals. That is a process of selection and any process of selection is bound to lead to marginal difficulties and considerations of equity. We believe that this category is clearly distinguishable from other categories covered by the Schedule.
What we seek today is not to change the whole structure of widows' benefits, but to try to relieve them of the additional burden as the proposition comes to us and as we go along. Sometimes the best in the enemy of the good. What good we want to do is to stop the Government from imposing this additional burden. We cannot remove the Health Service contributions entirely from them. All that we can do is to mitigate the hardship which by this increase the Government propose to inflict. We believe that this category is distinguishable and deserving. Without prejudice to our views on the wider issues of the treatment of widows within the Welfare State, we believe that this small relief would be welcome to them. We believe it to be fully justified and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby in support of it.

Question put, That those words be—there inserted:—

The Committee Divided: Ayes 178, Noes 260

Division No. 93.]
AYES
5.54 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Peart, Frederick


Albu, Austen
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pentland, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, Ernest


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Probert, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Proctor, W. T.


Benson, Sir George
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Randall, Harry


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, A. V.
Rankin, John


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Reid, William


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. S W.)
Houghton, Douglas
Reynolds, C. W.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hoy, James H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Short, Edward


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Callaghan, James
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Chapman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Snow, Julian


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cronin, John
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Crosland, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, George
Stones, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ledger, Ron
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, L.)
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Logan, David
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Sylvester, George


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie John
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dempsey, James
MacMillan. Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Timmons, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Tomney, Frank


Edelman, Maurice
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, Willam


Evans, Albert
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Finch, Harold
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan
Monslow, Walter
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fletcher, Eric
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Morris, John
Wigg, George


Forman, J. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mulley, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Neal, Harold
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Owen, Will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
Padley, W. E.
Woof. Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paget, R. T.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grimond, J.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Zilliacus, K.


Gunter, Ray
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)



Hall, Rt. tin. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Burden, F. A.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, Si)
Bidgood, John C.
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Allason, James
Bingham, R. M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian (Preston, N.)
Bishop, F. P.
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Arbuthnot, John
Bossom, Clive
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bourne-Arton, A.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Balniel, Lord
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Barber, Anthony
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cary, Sir Robert


Barlow, Sir John
Brains, Bernard
Chichester-Clark, R.


Barter, John
Brew's, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Batsford, Brian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Bell, Ronald
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cleaver, Leonard


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bryan, Paul
Cole, Norman


Berkeley, Humphry
Bullus, wing commander Eric
Cooper, A. E.




Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cordle, John
Jackson, John
Pitman, I. J.


Corfield, F. V.
James, David
Pitt, Miss Edith


Costain, A. P.
Jennings, J. C.
Pott, Percivall


Coulson, J. M.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior, J. M. L.


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cunningham, Knox
Joseph, Sir Keith
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Curran, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Daikeith, Earl of
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Peter


Dance, James
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Hugh


Merles, W. F.
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


de Ferranti, Basil
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lagden, Godfrey
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Healey)


du Cann, Edward
Langford-Holt, J.
Robertson, Sir David


Duthie, Sir William
Leavey, J. A.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Leburn, Gilmour
Roots, William


Eden, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Ronald


Emery, Peter
Lilley, F. J. P.
Seymour, Leslie


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lindsay, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Farr, John
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Fell, Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Finlay, Graeme
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, Walter H.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Freeth, Denzil
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Speir, Rupert


Gammons, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gardner, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stevens, Geoffrey


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset N.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Godber, J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Storey, sir Samuel


Goodhart, Philip
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Goodhew Victor
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Simmers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Gough, Frederick
McMaster, Stanley R.
Sumner, Donald (Orpington),


Cower, Raymond
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Donald (Orpington)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford. N.)


Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Grimston, Sir Robert
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Sir John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Nell
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vero (Macclesf'd)
Mouthing, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Turner, Colin


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mawby, Ray
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mills, Stratton
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wall, Patrick


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Morgan, William
Ward, Dame Irene


Hendry, Forbes
Morrison, John
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nabarro, Gerald
Watts, James


Hiley, Joseph
Heave, Alrey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Whitelaw, William


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Noble, Michael
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, Sir Richard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hobson, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wise, A. R.


Holland, Phillp
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hollingworth, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hornby, R. P.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Worsley, Marcus


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)



Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Percival, Ian
Mr. Gibson-Watt and




Mr. Frank Pearson.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, column 1, after "including", to insert "married women and".

The Temporary Chairman: This Amendment can be taken with the Amendment in page 3, line 22, column 1,


after "including", insert "married women and"; the Amendment in line 26, column 1, at end insert "not including married women"; and the Amendment in line 27, at end add:



s
d.


11. Employed married women between the ages of 18 and 65 not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment
1
5


12. Self-employed married women between the ages of 18 and 65 not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment
1
9


13. Non-employed married women between the ages of 18 and 60
1
9

Mr. Houghton: Thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. Your suggestion is very welcome. I fully accept that the Amendments can be taken together.
I will be frank with the Committee and say that I do not feel as deeply about this Amendment as I did about the one which we have just discussed, but it is worth while spending a short time looking at some of the anomalies which are created by the imposition of National Health Service contributions on those, and only on those, who pay National Insurance contributions. The Amendment is designed to leave all married women out of the additional National Health Service contributions, whether employed or self-employed. Married women who are working, whether employed or self-employed, can elect to pay or not to pay National Insurance contributions. There may be a number of factors such as the age of husband and wife respectively, the economic circumstances, and even the relationship between husband and wife, which govern a wife's decision whether to pay contributions for a pension in her own right.
I emphasise, however, that the decision when she takes it will be solely in relation to her position in the National Insurance Scheme. If she decides to pay contributions for reasons of her own under the National Insurance Scheme, the Treasury imposes upon her under the Bill the additional National Health Service contribution. If she elects not to pay National Insurance contributions she has no National Health Service contribution to pay at all, and she would escape not only the additional contributions under the Bill but the earlier contributions under the 1957 and 1958 Acts,
I wish to stress that this question of election whether to pay or not to pay contributions by a married woman at work has everything to do with how she thinks she will stand under the National Insurance Scheme and has nothing whatever to do with how she thinks she will stand under the National Health Service. Mostly the married women who are more than five years younger than their husbands may decide not to pay, because it is all a question of whether the wife will reach the age of 60, and become entitled to pension in her own right if she retires, before the time her husband reaches 65. If the husband is under 65 by the time the wife reaches 60 she will have to wait for her pension, unless she had paid for it in her own right, until her husband reaches 65.
Therefore, this question of the relative age of the husband and wife is all-important when the married woman decides whether to contribute or not. But whether the wife decides to contribute or otherwise has no effect upon her claims on the National Health Service. In that respect she is in the same position as any other citizen. I think that it is unfair not only in this context but in other connections as well to select only the contributor under the National Insurance Scheme to bear this additional tax towards the National Health Service.
This is the issue and the theme which runs right through the examination of categories of this kind. We are not in favour of rectifying this anomaly by bringing the married woman non-contributor within the scope of National Health Service contributions. We are in favour of reducing the burden on married women contributors. We cannot leave them out of the Bill altogether. They must still continue to pay National Health contributions under previous Acts and all we can do is to seek by Amendment to reduce to a derisory amount the sum for which the Schedule provides. We cannot solve all the problems. All we are doing is to do what we can to mitigate hardship or inconvenience where we see it in the extent and imposition of the National Health Service contribution.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has been very brief and to the point in dealing with


this series of Amendments, and I shall try to be the same.
The hon. Member has explained the effect of the Amendment, and so I need not go over that ground again, but I would stress that we are dealing with a position in which married women may choose whether to pay the National Insurance contribution or whether they are content with the benefits earned for them by the contributions paid by their husbands. I am informed that about two-thirds of the married women in employment choose not to pay the contribution. The reason is fairly obvious when one realises that the husband's contribution earns a widow's benefit of 57s. 6d., maternity and death grants and a wife's retirement benefit of 35s. which is added to her husband's retirement pension as soon as he has qualified for it.
But, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there are certain circumstances in which a married woman may decide that it will pay her to contribute. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case where the wife is older than the husband and, consequently, she may want to qualify for a pension before her husband reaches the age of 65. There is also the case of the married woman who wants to qualify for unemployment or sickness benefit in her own right.
I understand the point which the hon. Member was making about a possible anomaly here. He said, very fairly, that if there is an anomaly it is due to the fact that the liability to pay the National Health Service contribution follows the liability to pay the National Insurance contribution. I take his point, although I do not think he would wish me on this Amendment to go into the more fundamental question which is involved there.
I should like just to make a comment with regard to a possible anomaly in the case of married women. The National Health Service contribution is, after all, a flat-rate contribution from all classes of contributor, and if it is said that there is any anomaly in the case of a married woman, it might well be said that there was a strong case for arguing that all married women, whether or not they opted out of paying the National Insurance contribution, should pay the National Health Service contribution.

This, I should have thought, was the real anomaly, but I need not pursue that further, firstly, because the hon. Gentleman says that that is not a way in which he would advocate dealing with the situation, and, secondly, because to put it right would create, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, certain difficulties of administration which led the Government to accept the present position on an earlier occasion.
I do not wish to go into great detail on this series of Amendments, nor do I wish to refer to what the principle was in 1948 or anything like that. However, I should like to tell the Committee that here basically, I think, the issue is one of amount. In 1948 the health element of a married woman's contribution was 6½d. and that of an employed man's contribution 8½d. Therefore, it was then thought reasonable that the woman's contribution should be, as it were, 76½ per cent. of the man's contribution. The position was similar with regard to the self-employed and non-employed. Under the Bill the percentage of the woman's contribution in relation to the man's contribution will have been reduced to 75 per cent. In other words, the relationship between the married woman's contribution and the man's contribution is much the same as it has always been since the beginning of the scheme.
Bearing in mind the fact that no married woman is obliged to pay the National Insurance contribution and, consequently, the National Health contribution, there really is here no question of principle involved. It should also be borne in mind that the National Health Service contribution to be paid by a married woman bears much the same sort of relationship to that which has to be paid by a man and also that, without going into details, earnings have risen considerably since 1948. In view of all that, I should have thought that it was not unreasonable to increase the contribution as proposed in the First Schedule. For these reasons, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Ron Ledger: I do not want to spend a long time on this Amendment, but I feel that something must be said because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Economic Secretary to the case put by my


hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). The Economic Secretary seems to miss the whole point. When he says that this is merely a matter of amount as compared between today and a former period, he is missing my hon. Friend's point, which was that married women who go to work are able to elect to pay the National Insurance contribution or not, and, if they do pay it, it is obviously for some very good reason, perhaps as a safeguard. In all the cases that I know there are very good reasons connected with the age of the wife compared with the husband, there probably being a benefit which has been very carefully worked out by the woman.
The increased contribution is in respect of the element which goes towards the National Health Service cost. What the married woman who stays at work elects to pay when she pays the National Insurance contribution is on the National Insurance part of the stamp, because of the extra benefits which she will get; she gets a benefit over and above what is obtained by the married woman who decides not to pay the contribution. When the amount which goes towards the Health Service charges is increased, the woman is paying for something over and above the insurance element, and yet she is not at the same time getting any benefit for the extra she is paying. At this point, although she is being asked to pay more, she will still get from that payment only the same benefit as the married woman worker who pays nothing.
The Economic Secretary says that there is no principle involved here, that there is not really a big difference and that it is just a matter of amounts. That is ridiculous. If it was purely and simply a question of the extra amount which was being paid we might have a little difficulty with the Amendment; but it is the principle of the matter which is involved here. I ask the Economic Secretary to think again about this. On this side of the Committee we are coming to the conclusion that there is one speech on each Amendment which it does not matter if one does not hear, and that is the speech from the Government Front Bench, for it seems totally to disregard the arguments put forward from this side of the Committee. It

seems to me that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are not taking the Bill with the seriousness that it demands.
It seems to me that the Economic Secretary completely ignored my hon. Friend's case. I would ask him seriously to consider the unfairness in the situation that, when a married woman has elected to pay a contribution because she is staying at work, the Government tell her that for that part of the stamp for which she gets no preferential treatment over and above those who do not pay for it they are going to charge her more.
If the Economic Secretary wanted to take his point further, he would say that all married women should now pay this extra amount. We take his point, and are making the argument strongly that it is not necessary to charge any married women—or, indeed, any men—this extra on the stamp. The hon. Gentleman knows our case, and the point we make is simple. He should give a serious reply.
What is to be the position of those married women who stayed on at work and elected to pay the contribution, but are now being asked to pay a further amount? It is totally unfair, because they will gain no extra benefit above those women who elected not to pay the contribution.

Mr. Barber: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee, but the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) asked me a specific question, with his usual courtesy. The National Health Service contribution had not any separate existence before the Act of 1957, but an element of the National Insurance contribution was allotted to the National Health Service. I want to make it clear—there can be no dispute about this—that no attempt was made between 1948 and 1957 to reduce the National Insurance contribution paid by married women to allow for the fact that they should not have been asked to make such a notional contribution to the Health Service.
It was with that in mind that I said that there was no question of principle here, unless the Opposition, as they are entitled to do, have changed their mind since 1948. I tried to deal with the question of the alleged anomaly. That is what I meant when I said that no question of principle was involved.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger) has dealt with the anomaly which the Economic Secretary refuses to see. After listening to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, I find it difficult to understand why the Economic Secretary fails to see the anomaly. A group of women who are paying insurance are now being asked to pay more for an element out of which they will get nothing. That is an anomaly, and I would have thought that the Economic Secretary would have recognised it and have been willing to accept that we had at least a case.
One argument of the hon. Gentleman's, to which we have listened each time he has replied to an Amendment, is that a certain thing was done in 1946 so it should not be changed now. I am astonished by that attitude. Every time we examine a Bill we should do so on the basis of experience gained since the previous legislation was passed. If we accepted his idea that we should not change something because it had been done 12 or 15 years previously, we would never make any progress. How far do we go back before the Economic Secretary's argument becomes irrelevant? In terms of his argument, it would be right to say that because we did something in 1861 we should not amend it in 1961, or that because there was no National Health Service then we should not have one now. That is the logic of the argument he always adduces.
On each Amendment he says, "Ah, but the Labour Government did it this way." That attitude always touches me. It seems somewhat pathetic that the Government should have to argue like this. They put forward the pathetic belief that what the Labour Government did must not be altered. I am the last person to claim that, and I am surprised that it should be a Tory argument. Legislation of the Labour Government should be altered in the light of experience.
The Labour Government were putting into operation for the first time a new and imaginative scheme. No one expected that scheme to be perfect from the beginning, or that its provisions would become immutable laws of the country. We expected to reconsider this

legislation in the light of experience, and that steps would be taken to rectify anomalies where they were seen to have arisen. We are now, with this Amendment, trying to deal with an anomaly which has become bigger as time has passed and as the contribution has increased. Every time the contribution towards the National Health Service is increased the anomaly becomes greater, and the case for making a change becomes greater.
This anomaly has been clearly stated, and the time has come to do something about it. During today's debates on the various Amendments, we have heard one speech from Members opposite. It was a treat to hear the views of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran) instead of reading them in the Press——

Mr. Manuel: Or on television.

Mr. Willis: I do not often listen to him on television. But we usually have his views in the Press rather than on the Floor of this Committee.
The Opposition are being modest with this Amendment. We say, "Here are some small things that can be done; let the Government look at them and do something about them." That is a modest approach and a realistic one, in accordance with the manner in which we in this Committee carry out our business. I cannot understand how the Economic Secretary can refuse this Amendment. Our case is a good one, and he might at least have attempted to answer it by adducing some arguments against it.

Mrs. Eirene White: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unduly, because I have a strong interest in some later Amendments, and I do not wish the Guillotine to fall and cut them in half. This Amendment gives yet another example of the anomalies which are occurring now in National Insurance legislation as soon as the amounts concerned become sufficiently large to be important.
To that degree, I agree with the Economic Secretary that this is partly a matter of amount and partly a matter of principle. The principle enshrined in the Labour Government's legislation was incorrect, but he is right in saying that it is only when the amount involved becomes substantial that one seriously becomes worried about the principle.
There is an anomaly enshrined here which, when it was a matter of 4d., we did not worry about. But it is now becoming a matter of substance, the shoe pinches, and the principle is no more valid than it was in the early days, when we took little notice of it. This is only a further example, of which we have a number in our taxation system, of the difficulties in which we have placed ourselves owing to the failure of society in general to regard women as persons. It looks upon a woman as some kind of sub-being who has no individual personality.
6.30 p.m.
I am not proposing to enter into a long feminist discourse on the matter, but I point out that some of our difficulties arise from the fact that historically women have been regarded as having no personality in the legal sense. For some time we have been moving towards the position of recognising that they have such a personality, and women have become persons of some economic consequence, but it is difficult to adjust our legislation to take account of their modern position and to treat them as persons in their own right. If we were taxed, assessed and paid contributions separately as persons, with due allowance for children and families, that would avoid many of the troubles of which this instance is but one.
The married woman, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, is being unfairly treated. On the insurance side, it depends on the woman's age relative

to that of her husband whether it is worth her while to pay for insurance purposes. She and her husband get nothing like the full benefits, because her husband is not able to obtain them, although he has paid exactly the same as the man who does, whereas the married woman who has paid as much as a single woman does not get more benefit at the end. Men and women paying insurance contributions together do not reap benefits equal to those which they would have received if the arrangements has been straightforward.

I still think that the anomaly of women paying a percentage is without logical foundation when related to their earnings. The Minister said that women paid 75 per cent. of the contribution paid by men. I have said before that women's earning in industry are half men's earnings and for them to pay a 75 per cent. contribution is completely inequitable. Average earnings for men in industry are £14 10s. 8d. per week, while for women the figure is £7 8s. 4d. per week. In manufacturing industry alone, average earnings for men are £15 0s. 3d. a week, while for women they are only £7 8s. 3d. A contribution of 75 per cent. for women is therefore inequitable and has no relation to earnings. I do not want to go over the ground again, but the Minister's reply on this occasion has been no more satisfactory than those given previously.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 248.

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[6.34 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Albu, Austen
Cronin, John
Galpern, Sir Myer


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grossman, R. H. S.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen Mrs. Alice
Ginsburg, David


Awbery, Stan
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gourlay, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Anthony


Benson, Sir George
Davies, !for (Gower)
Grey, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Deer, George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)


Blyton, William
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Boardman, H.
Delargy, Hugh
Grimond, J.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Dempsey, James
Gunter, Ray


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Driberg, Tom
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvll (Coins Valley)


Bowles, Frank
Dugdate, Rt. Hon. John
Hannan, William


Brockway, A. Farmer
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hayman, F. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Healey, Denis


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regls)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Albert
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Callaghan, James
Finch, Harold
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Chapman, Donald
Fitch, Alan
Hilton, A. V.


Cliffe, Michael
Fetcher, Eric
Holman, Percy


Collick, Percy
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Houghton, Douglas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Forman, J. C.
Hoy, James H.




Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold
Stones, William


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Heel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oliver, G. H.
Swain, Thomas


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas
Swingler, Stephen


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Will
Sylvester, George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Padley, W. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Kelley, Richard
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Thornton, Ernest


Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, Frederick
Timmons, John


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
Tomney, Frank


Lawson, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ledger, Ron
Probert, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Lipton, Marcus
Proctor, W. T.
Warbey, William


Logan, David
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Watkins, Tudor


Loughlin, Charles
Randall, Harry
Weitzman, David


MacColl, James
Rankin, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Reld, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mackie, John
Reynolds, G. W.
Wigg, George


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Manuel, A. C.
Ross, William
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Mason, Roy
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mellish, R. J.
Short, Edward
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Millan, Bruce
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Milne, Edward J.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Woof, Robert


Monslow, Walter
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Moody, A. S.
Snow, Julian
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Morris, John
Sorensen, R. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Mort, D. L.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Moyle, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mulley, Frederick
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Cordle, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Allason, James
Costain, A. P.
Harrison Col. J. H. (Eye)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Coulson, J. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Arbuthnot, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Crowder, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Barber, Anthony
Cunningham, Knox
Hastings, Stephen


Barlow, Sir John
Curran, Charles
Hay, John


Barter, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Batsford, Brian
Dance, James
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
d'Avigdor-Coldsmid. Sir Henry
Hendry, Forbes


Ben, Ronald
Deedes, W. F.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
de Ferranti, Basil
Hiley, Joseph


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon Charles (Luton)


Bidgood, John C.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bingham, R. M.
du Cann, Edward
Hobson, John


Bishop, F. P.
Duthie, Sir William
Holland, Philip


Bossom, Clive
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hollingworth, John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Eden, John
Hornby, R. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Emery, Peter
Hughes-Young, Michael


Brains, Bernard
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Brawis, John
Farr, John
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Fell, Anthony
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brooman-White, R.
Finlay, Graeme
Iremonger, T. L.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Fisher, Nigel
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; stone)
Jackson, John


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
James, David


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Freeth, Denzil
Jennings, J. C.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gammons, Lady
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Gardner, Edward
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Joseph, Sir Keith


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Godber J. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gough, Frederick
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gower, Raymond
Kimball, Marcus


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Kitson, Timothy


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Green, Alan
Lagden, Godfrey


Cleaver, Leonard
Grimston, Sir Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cole, Norman
Halt, John (Wycombe)
Langford-Holt, J.


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton Michael (Wellingborough)
Leavey, J. A.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Leburn, Gilmour


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harris Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry




Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Lilley, F. J. P.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Speir, Rupert


Lindsay, Martin
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Stevens, Geoffrey


Litchfield, Capt. John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Longden, Gilbert
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Loveys, Walter H.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Percival Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
pitman, I. J.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Pott, Percival)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Prior, J. M. L.
Turner, Colin


Maddan, Martin
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maginnis, John E.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maitland, Sir John
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vane, W. M. F.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Rawlinson, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wall, Patrick


Marshall, Douglas
Rees, Hugh
Ward, Dame Irene


Marten, Neil
Renton, Davies, W. R.
Watts, James


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Renton, Devid
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Whitelaw, William


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Royce, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wise, A. R.


Mills, Stratton
Russell, Ronald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Seymour, Leslie
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sharpies, Richard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Morgan, William
Shaw, M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Morrison, John
Shepherd, William
Worsley, Marcus


Naharro, Gerald
Simon. Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn



Heave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel.


Noble, Michael
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, column 2, to leave out "2s. 0½d." and to insert "1s. 5d.".
This is the female partner to the Amendment in page 3, line 12, column 2,

which has been before the Committee. I therefore move it formally.

Question put, That "2s. 0½d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 181.

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[6.44 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Eden, John


Allason, James
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Emery, Peter


Arbuthnot, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Farr, John


Barber, Anthony
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fell, Anthony


Barlow, Sir John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Finlay, Graeme


Barter, John
Cleaver, Leonard
Fisher, Nigel


Botsford, Brian
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Cooper, A. E.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bell, Ronald
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Freeth, Denzil


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gammons, Lady


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Cordle, John
Gardner, Edward


Bidgood, John C.
Corfield, F. V.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bingham, R. M.
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Coulson, J. M.
Godber, J. B.


Bossom, Clive
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Goodhew, Victor


Bourne-Arton, A.
Crowder, F. P.
Gough, Frederick


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cunningham, Knox
Gower, Raymond


Boyle, sir Edward




Braine, Bernard
Curran, Charles
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Brewis, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Green, Alan


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dance, James
Grimston, Sir Robert


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
d'Avigdor.Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brooman-White, R.
Deedes, W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Broome, Percy (Torrington)
de Ferranti, Basil
Hare, Rt. Hon. John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Burden, F. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
du Cann, Edward
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A, (Saffron Walden)
Duthie, Sir William
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye




Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesf'd)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Boyle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, Ronald


Hastings, Stephen
Maddan, Martin
Seymour, Leslie


Hay, John
Maginnis, John E.
Sharpies, Richard


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Sir John
Shaw, M.


Hendry, Forbes
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Shepherd, William


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Hiley, Joseph
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marshall, Douglas
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hobson, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Holland, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Speir, Rupert


Hollingworth, John
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hornby, R. P.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Mills, Stratton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Montgomery, Fergus
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hurd, Sir Anthony
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan, William
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, John
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nabarro, Gerald
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Jackson, John
Heave, Alrey
Temple, John M.


James, David
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jennings, J. C.
Noble, Michael
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Joseph, Sir Keith
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Tlley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)



Kerby, Capt. Henry
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Turner, Colin


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Kitson, Timothy
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lagden, Godfrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Vane, W. M. F.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peel, John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Langford-Holt, J.
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Leavey, J. A.
Pickthom, Sir Kenneth
Wall, Patrick


Leburn, Gilmour
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pitman, I. J.
Watts, James


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Pott, Percivall
Whitelaw, William


Lindsay, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Prior, J. M. L.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wise, A. R.


Longden, Gilbert
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Loveys, Walter H.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Rawilnson, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Worsley, Marcus


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Rees, Hugh



Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Renton, David
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Mr. Chichester-Clark.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Albu, Austen
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grimond, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crews)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gunter, Ray


Awbery, Stan
Deer, George
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
de Freltas, Geoffrey
Hannan, William


Heaney, Alan
Delargy, Hugh
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Benson, Sir George
Dempsey, James
Hayman, F. H.


Blackburn, F.
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Denis


Blyton, William
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regls)


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Bowden, Herbert W. (Lelcs, S.W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Edwards, Robert Bilston.)
Hilton, A. V.


Bowles, Frank
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Holman, Percy


Brookway, A. Fenner
Evans, Albert
Houghton, Douglas


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Finch, Harold
Hoy, James H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Fitch, Alan
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fletcher, Eric
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Callaghan, James
Forman, J. C.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Chapman, Donald
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Cllffe, Michael
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas


Cellick, Percy
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Cmrthn)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ginsburg, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Culten, Mrs. Alice
Grey, Charles
Kelley, Richard




Kenyon, Clifford
Paget, R. T.
Swain, Thomas


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Swingler, Stephen


King, Dr. Horace
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sylvester, George


Lawson, George
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Ledger, Ron
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lipton, Marcus
Peart, Frederick
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Logan, David
Pentland, Norman
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Loughlin, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thornton, Ernest


MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur
Thorpe, Jeremy


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Proctor, W. T.
Timmons, John


Mackie, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Tomney, Frank


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Randall, Harry
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfleld, E.)
Reid, William
Warbey, William


Manuel, A. C.
Reynolds, G. W.
Watkins, Tudor


Mason, Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Milian, Bruce
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Milne, Edward, J.
Rose, William
Wigg, George


Mitchison, G. R.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Monslow, Walter
Short, Edward
Wilkins, W. A.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Williams, D. J. (heath)


Morris, John
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Mort, D. L.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Moyle, Arthur
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mulley, Frederick
Snow, Julian
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Neal, Harold
Sorensen, R. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woof. Robert


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wyatt, Woodrow


Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Oswald, Thomas
Stones, William
Zilliacus, K.


Owen, Will
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John



Padley, W. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Redhead and Dr. Broughton.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, column 1, after "18" to insert "not including apprentices".

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that with this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss the Amendment on page 3, line 27, at the end to add:
11. Apprentices under the age of 18 … 11d.

Mr. Ross: This Amendment is a particularised aspect of the following Amendment which covers the actual payments with the increases, and, finally, what the Government suggest should be paid by the 18 to 21-year-olds.
We have already had a good discussion on the 18 to 21s when we discovered that some hon. Members opposite adjudged whether or not it was right to put an increased payment on the young people on the basis of teenage squanderers. They seemed to be spending so much money in doing all sorts of wonderful things——

Mr. Loughlin: Riding motor-cycles.

Mr. Ross: Yes, riding motor-cycles and all the rest of it, and hon. Members opposite suggested that they could easily afford this little extra. If we are to take what people spend as a criterion of their ability to pay, I think that the tax gatherers will have a rich harvest to draw

in before even touching the young people; but it is a rather fallacious and dangerous argument.
Here we are dealing with apprentices, young people in industry who have taken a step which, I presume, the Government want them to take. In Scotland and in England I hear Ministers proclaiming the value of apprenticeships and the desirability of securing skilled manpower. They deplore the fact that there are so few apprentices in industry today. I hope that the Government will be prepared to mitigate this increase in respect of apprentices.
We have to bear in mind that the Government seem to work with strange and divided minds regarding this kind of thing. Only in September of last year I received from the Ministry of Pensions and National Service a notification of the new family allowances in relation to apprentices. It states:
A 17-year-old apprentice can count for family allowances if his weekly earnings are less than 89s. 6d. For apprentices aged 16 the limit is 87s. and for those aged 15 84s. 6d.
This increase, as recent as September of last year, was a recognition that the limits existing at that time were too low. Obviously, it would follow that if the Government now presume to raise by 6d. the allowance in respect of National Health Service contributions paid by


apprentices, they ought to raise this limit by another 6d.
The interesting thing is that it states, in this official document:
This is the effect of a decision, published today, by the National Insurance Commissioner on an appeal by the mother of an electrical engineering apprentice. The Family Allowance Act covers apprentices whose earnings do not Provide 'wholly or substantially a livelihood'.
That is an important ruling. It is not a ruling from this side of the Committee, or from the Government; it is a ruling by the National Insurance Commissioner who, in September of last year, stated that these payments did not provide "wholly or substantially a livelihood".
The Commissioner ruled that that meant earnings up to the amounts stated. What justification can the Government have for making an increase in circumstances in which, as we all know, some apprentices earn very much less than the earnings which the National Insurance Commissioner himself says do not provide "wholly or substantially a livelihood"? Why should the Government snap on another increase in respect of the National Health contribution? The case is as simple as that.
I sincerely hope that the Government will not plead administrative difficulties in this matter. If a thing is right, let us find a way to do it. That is what the minions behind the hon. Gentleman are for—to ensure that the administration is so moulded as to cover cases which the House of Commons decides should be treated in a special way. We suggest that these Amendments are worthy not only of the consideration, but the support of every hon. Member in the Committee.

7.0 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: The effect of this Amendment, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rightly said, would be to reduce the rate for apprentices under 18 from 1s. 4½d. to 11 d. Perhaps I might remind the Committee of the present arrangements regarding apprentices. Those apprentices who are not paid at all of course pay no National Insurance, and consequently no separate National Health contribution. They are treated the same as girls and boys who stay on at school. Those

who are paid are treated as employed persons.
The difficulty about the Amendment is that we have been discussing today and on previous occasions whether we should select categories which are not to pay this particular contribution. Without going into the arguments we have used in discussion of earlier Amendments, as I see it this Amendment is in a sense selecting a category within a category. My reason for asking the Committee to reject the Amendment is that I do not think there is sufficient justification for treating apprentices differently from any other lower paid juveniles. The apprentice is unlikely to have dependents and, to that extent, is in a better position than a number of older men or women with higher earnings but greater family liabilities.
I think the figures quoted by the hon. Member bear this out. Some idea of the level of earnings generally accepted by apprentices can be gained by noting that for the purposes of family allowances qualification, a reasonable livelihood for an apprentice under 18 is of the order of 85s. That provision of the Family Allowances Act has been changed on more than one occasion since the Act came into force as a result of the operations of the National Insurance Commissioner.
I cannot feel that there is a sufficient case for treating the apprentice in a separate position from other lower paid juvenile workers. I do not consider that in our system of social services apprentices in general are treated unfairly. Without getting out of order in developing this point, I can say that I think a number of people, including, if she were here herself, the late Miss Eleanor Rathbone, might be surprised to discover this figure of 85s. It would surprise many who were originally responsible for the Family Allowances Act. I cannot think that there is a sufficient case for acceptance of this Amendment, and for that reason I advise the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Loughlin: I deliberately waited until the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had spoken because I was hoping that we had at last reached the stage at which he could find something to concede to us in the series of Amendments we have submitted. It does not


appear that the hon. Gentleman has any intention of conceding anything about anyone.
It is true that the Amendments we have moved and these two Amendments have sought to place certain people, including widows and apprentices, in special categories. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think apprentices constituted a category which ought to be privileged in this way. The same answer has been given to every case we have put up so far. No doubt it will be given to every case we present until the end of this discussion. If rejection of these Amendments is on the ground that the persons concerned do not constitute a special category and if that argument is applied to every category we advance, there is no purpose in submitting our series of Amendments. It might be pertinent to ask the Financial Secretary, in view of the continual use of this argument, to indicate what people he would be prepared to accept in separate categories needing specialised treatment under these provisions.
He knows, and we all know, that the trade union movement, employers of labour and the Government have for years exhorted the institution of apprenticeships in practically every trade in the country. It is very difficult to persuade young boys into them when they are asked to pay increasingly on rates of wages which do not bear comparison with those paid to other youngsters of the same age who go into jobs where they are not tied down by indentures. It is no good the Financial Secretary saying that the average apprentice in industry today is quite capable of meeting the additional costs which this Government place upon him.
This matter may be only a matter of coppers, but many apprentices have to think in terms of coppers. The other night hon. Members opposite were arguing that youngsters in this country had an enormous amount of money to spend. One hon. Member opposite related how many youngsters with high rates of wages were riding motor-cycles and Vespars. I believe he said that £900 million was spent by young people in one form or another of pleasure seeking. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that if we are to start talking in terms of ability to pay,

the argument applied by hon. Members opposite to youngsters in industry who can afford a certain amount of pleasure seeking should apply equally to many people whose interests are represented by hon. Members opposite—and I do not mean their constituents.
The Government ought to look at the possibility of encouraging apprentices in every possible way. Unless there is a quickening of apprenticeship schemes in industry, in fifteen years time we shall he in a difficult position. In other countries the emphasis is on creating technicians who will be required in the technological revolution which is taking place, but here the tendency is not to create them. The Government by low rates of wages are not encouraging the creation of apprenticeship schemes yet they are imposing these charges. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the average boy in an apprenticeship scheme does not receive anything like the rates of wages paid to boys who are not apprenticed. If the apprentice sees other youngsters of the same age in receipt of higher wages and yet has to face additional charges envisaged in this Bill, his younger brother who might otherwise have become an apprentice will be very reluctant to do so. In any case it is unfair.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we need apprentices. He has the opportunity now to give an indication that the Government want to encourage apprentices. We are in a dangerous situation. I believe in democracy and in debate and discussion. I believe in this House hammering things out and getting the best we can for the people of the country, but hon. Members opposite have been neglecting their duties completely in these debates.
Those who are arguing this case to improve this Measure are not on the Government side of the House, and when one hon. Gentleman on the Government benches rises to speak a cheer goes up. I am very worried about this, because not merely is it happening on this Measure, but on many more Measures as well. The Government are showing a complete rigidity they are not prepared to listen to arguments or to make any concesssions, and I make the prediction that they will not concede anything on any one of the Amendments which we are advancing from this side


of the Committee in the course of the discussions on this Bill.
I think it is about time that the Financial Secretary looked at this matter again. I have a great respect for him, and I hope he will not take this in a personal way, but I hope he will be a little more considerate to the arguments we have advanced. We are advancing this case for a number of reasons, not merely the moral issues which are involved in this poll tax on people who cannot afford to pay, but also from the long-term aspect of this question and the effect on the production of apprentices for British industry. It is as much the Financial Secretary's responsibility as it is mine to see that we do not do anything to stop the encouragement of apprentices. I therefore ask him to look again at this matter.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hands of the Financial Secretary are tied on this matter?

Mr. Loughlin: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but even if the Financial Secretary's hands are tied, after all he represents the Treasury. If, having heard the discussion in this Committee, he cannot say that he will accept the Amendment, there is nothing to stop him indicating to us that, although he cannot accept it in its present form, he will consult his right hon. and learned Friend and bring back an Amendment to meet the points made in debate on Report stage. I ask him to do that.

Mr. Ledger: I should like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to clear up one small point. I had a feeling, when the hon. Gentleman was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), that he was almost conceding a point with which we on this side of the Committee would very much agree. I have the feeling, having watched the hon. Gentleman during the past five or six years, that he is very much a man of principle, and that his principles have been giving him a lot of trouble during the course of these debates.
The hon. Gentleman was making the point that he could not accept this Amendment because, he said, it would

give the apprentices a preference or a privilege over young people of the same age who might be earning less. The simple point I put to him is that if he were prepared to concede that these young people under 18 should be treated in exactly the same way as we wish apprentices could be treated, he would have our full agreement. We do not want this difference between apprentices and young people who are not apprentices, and this is where we would be all the way with him.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would indicate whether it was our attitude in wanting what may appear to be a privilege for apprentices which has given him his difficulty. I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of all my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee in saying that, if he would accept this Amendment or a similar one to provide that all young people under 18 should have the benefit of the Amendment, he would carry everybody on this side with him.

Mr. Ross: I was hoping that the Financial Secretary would reply to the points which have been put to him. After all, we have tried so hard to reach his heart. We try with whole categories, but he places one against the other and says that it is impossible. We then try with a special category, and the hon. Gentleman then says, It cannot be done, because it would not be fair to the others within the category." Here we have two Amendments which marry them both—one relating to a specialised number of people within a category, as well as the whole category of the 18 to 21-year-olds itself, and still the hon. Gentleman refuses.
Why does not the Financial Secretary be honest and say that the Government are determined that they are not going to have a Report stage on the Bill and that it has to be finished, as far as this House is concerned, by Thursday. The hon. Gentleman is put there to stonewall and stonewall, and this is really what it comes to. This is futility, and it is reducing the House of Commons to a farce, but it is probably inevitable under the proceedings under the Guillotine.
Let us look at the situation, and the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite had better face it. Here we


have the National Insurance Commissioner telling us, in respect of a category of people, that if they are not being paid a certain amount they are not receiving a sum of money which will constitute "wholly or substantially a livelihood," but the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to tax that section of the population additionally. There is no way out of this. So long as those people hold National Insurance cards, they will pay, and it is no good hon. Members opposite comforting themselves with the thought that they pay only 6d. It is only 6d. more, but that makes the total contribution in respect of the Health Service contribution 1s. 4½d. per week. If we look at their cards, we find no stamp for the National Health Service contribution, because that is only a part that is incorporated within something else.
7.15 p.m.
What they are paying at present is 5s. 5d. What they will pay in April as a result of the Act passed last year will be 6s. 3d., and the result of the Bill now before us, if this Amendment is turned down, will be that on 1st July they will pay 6s. 9d. That is what comes out of the wages of apprentices or young people under 18, and that is what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should face. I am not going into the argument whether we should specialise in getting our hospitals built this way. We have had that argument before and we shall be returning to it. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech about four times, and no doubt we shall hear it again, though it is no more convincing now than it was the first time.
It is dreadful that we cannot get one hon. Gentleman opposite to rise in support of his own Government. They make their speeches, if they make them at all, at the weekend, outside this House. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have lost all their courage."] It is not that they have lost all their courage, but that they have lost leadership. They have no interest in this. I feel very sorry for the Financial Secretary that he should be left to carry this miserable baby. I hope that my hon. Friends will press this matter to a Division, because I think the Government have no justification for what they are doing, either in respect of a whole category, and certainly not in respect of apprentices as such.

Sir E. Boyle: If I take the mood of the Committee correctly, it is that hon. Members want to come to a conclusion fairly rapidly on this Amendment. I would not wish to be thought discourteous to any of the hon. Members who had spoken, but, remembering the trouble I got into once for making two speeches in two hours, I was wondering whether making two speeches in a quarter of an hour would go down too well.
In answer to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ledger), who made a perfectly reasonable point, I would say that we were addressing ourselves, in particular, to an Amendment to insert the words "not including apprentices". It was perfectly legitimate, in these circumstances, to say that, in my view, there would be no justification for treating apprentices differently from other lower paid juveniles, but, since the point has been made, I hope that you, Sir William, will not rule me out of order if I "come clean" with the Committee and say that in regard to lower-paid workers, we have disposed of that Amendment. I would find it difficult to be convinced that whether or not those persons should pay contributions should depend on their age, and I quite admit that if Amendments directed to those points had been put down I should be opposing them, too.
My experience in the House is that it is quite common, with a short Bill founded on a Ways and Means Resolution, that no Amendments get accepted in Committee—but I say that, obviously, without prejudice to any further Amendments that may be moved this evening. It is not at all unprecedented in the proceedings of this House that when a short Bill is introduced, as I say, founded on a Ways and Means Resolution, that the Bill leaves the Committee stage as it came to it. I am merely stating the facts; I do not seek to do anything else. I speak only of my own experience.
With those few words of mine, perhaps the Committee might agree fairly soon to take a decision on this fairly narrow Amendment, and then get on to the next Amendment, which raises issues of considerable interest.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divied: Ayes 181, Noes 239.

Division No. 96.
AYES
17.21 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Albu, Austen
Healey, Denis
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Probert, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, Stan
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Holt, Arthur
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, William


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Reynolds, G. W.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Lelcs, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Janner, Sir Barnett
Short, Edward


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman, Julius (Aston


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Snow, Julian


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Kelley, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, Percy
Kenyon, Clifford
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
King, Dr. Horace
Stones, William


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, George
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ledger, Ron
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Logan, David
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Sylvester, George


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dempsey, James
MacMillan, Maloolm (Western Isles)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Driberg, Tom
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, S.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Timmons, John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Albert
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Finch, Harold
Milne, Edward J.
Watkins, Tudor


Fitch, Alan
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Monslow, Walter
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Forman, J. C.
Morris, John
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Williams. D. J. (Neath)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Srmrthn)
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby. S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanetly)
Owen, Will
Wyatt, Woodrow


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.



Grimond, J.
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Gunter, Ray
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Zilliacus, K.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Cronin and Dr. Broughton


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Peart, Frederick





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Bidgood, John C.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Bingham, R. M.
Burden, F. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Bishop, F. P.
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Atkins, Humphrey
Bossom, Clive
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Barber, Anthony
Bourne-Arton, A.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Barlow, Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Batsford, Brian
Braine, Bernard
Cary, Sir Robert


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Brewis, John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Bell, Ronald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Berkeley, Humphry
Brooman-White, R.
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)




Cleaver, Leonard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cole, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, I. J.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neil
Jackson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Cordle, John
James, David
Pott, Percivall


Corfield, F. V.
Jennings, J. C.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Contain, A. P.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior, J. M. L.


Coulson, J. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Cunningham, Knox
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Curran, Charles
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Currie, C. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Redmayne, Rt Hon. Martin


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Hugh


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, W. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Renton, David


de Ferranti, Basil
Langford-Holt, J.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Leavey, J. A.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leburn, Gilmour
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


du Cann, Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Ronald


Duthie, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Seymour, Leslie


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sharples, Richard


Emery, Peter
Lindsay, Martin
Shaw, M.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Shepherd, William


Fell, Anthony
Litchfield, Capt. John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Loveys, Walter H.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Freeth, Denzil
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Speir, Rupert


Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gardner, Edward
McAdden, Stephen
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gibson-Watt, David
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Godber, J. B.
Maclean, Sir Fltzroy, (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Goodhew, Victor
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gough, Frederick
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Gower, Raymond
McMaster, Stanley R.
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Grant, Rt. Hon, William
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Green, Alan
Madden, Martin
Temple, John M.


Grimston, Sir Robert
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Sir John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marten, Neil
Turner, Colin


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tweedsmuir, Lady



Mawby, Ray



Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S.L.C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mills, Stratton
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hay, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morgan, William
Wall, Patrick


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morrison, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hendry, Forbes
Nabarro, Gerald
Watts, James


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Neave, Airey
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hiley, Joseph
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Whitelaw, William


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wise, A. R.


Hobson, John
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hollingworth, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hornby, R. P.
Pannel, Norman (kirkdale)
Worsley, Marcus


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Percival, Ian
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Noble.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, column 2, to leave out "1s. 4½d." and to insert "11d."
This Amendment deals with the whole group of employed boys and girls under 18. A few moments ago the Financial Secretary criticised the last Amendment on the ground that it dealt with a group within a group. The Committee has rejected the proposed Amendment to give relief to the group within the group and

we therefore seek, by this Amendment, to give relief to the whole of the group.
All I need add is that the Financial Secretary, with his customary disarming candour, told us that it was very unusual for any Amendments to be accepted to a short Bill which had been the subject of a Money Resolution hut, to preserve his constitutional position, he added that what he said was without prejudice to the


consideration of later Amendments on the Notice Paper.
We now know that it is not without prejudice to the remaining Amendments on the Notice Paper. The Amendment which I have moved is prejudiced by the general considerations to which the Financial Secretary referred. I will not

bandy further words with him about the Amendment. I will not waste my time. The Amendment is prejudiced from the beginning. It will not be carried, but I ask the Committee to divide on it.

Question put, That "1s. 43d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 180.

Division No. 97.]
AYES
[7.33 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Gibson-Watt, David
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Allison, James
Godber, J. B.
McMaster, Stanley R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Jullan (Preston, N.)
Goodhew, Victor
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Arbuthnot, John
Gough, Frederick
Maddan, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Barber, Anthony
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maitland, Sir John


Barlow, Sir John
Green, Alan
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Barter, John
Grimston, Sir Robert
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Batsford, Brian
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marshall, Douglas


Bell, Ronald
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Marten, Neil


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Berkeley, Humphry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mawby, Ray


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bidgood, John C.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Masclesf'd)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bingham, R.M.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton


Bishop, F. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Montgomery, Fergus


Bossom, Clive
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hay, John
Morgan, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Morrison, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, Gerald


Braine, Bernard
Hendry, Forbes
Heave, Airey


Brewis, John
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Nugent, Sir Richard


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Brooman White, R.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hobson. John
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hollingworth, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hornby, R P
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peel, John


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Percival, Ian


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, I. J.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jackson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
James, David
Pott, Percivall


Cleaver, Leonard
Jennings, J. C.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior, J. M. L.


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Erie (Blackdey)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Cordle, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Corfield, F. V.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Costain, A. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Peter


Coulson, J. M.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Craddock Sir Beresford
Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Hugh


Cunningham, Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Curran, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Renton, David


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt J.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Dance, James
Leavey, J. A.
Robson Brown, Sir William


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Leburn, Gilmour
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Dudes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Ronald


de Ferranti, Basil
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Seymour, Leslie


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sharples, Richard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lindsay, Martin
Shaw, M.


du Cann, Edward
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Shepherd, William


Duthie, Sir William
Litchfield, Capt. John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Emery, Peter
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chlswick)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Loveys, Walter H.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fell, Anthony
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Speir, Rupert


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)




Freeth, Denzil
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gammans, Lady
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Gardner, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Stoddart-Scott. Col. Sir Malcolm




Storey, Sir Samuel
Turner, Colin
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Studholme, Sir Henry
Tweedemuir, Lady
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wise, A. R.


Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Ward, Dame Irene



Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Watts, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Finlay and Mr. Noble.


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Whitelaw, William





NOES


Abse, Leo
Healey, Denis
Pentland, Norman


Albu, Austen
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Price, J.T. (Westhoughton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Probert, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, Stan
Hilton, A. V.
Purvey, Cmdr. Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Holman, Percy
Randall, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Holt, Arthur
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, James H.
Reid, William


Blyton, William
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reynolds, G. W.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Janner, Sir Barnett
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. Penner
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Short, Edward


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Snow, Julian


Chapman, Donald
Keiley, Richard
Sorensen, R. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Kenyon, Clifford
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, Percy
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. Horace
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Stones, William


Crossman, R. H. S.
Ledger, Ron
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lipton, Marcus
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Logan, David
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Sylvester, George


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dempsey, James
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Driberg, Tom
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mallalleu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Robert (Bliston)
Mason, Roy
Timmons. John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Tourney, Frank


Evans, Albert
Millan, Bruce
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Finch, Harold
Milne, Edward J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitch, Alan
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, William


Fletcher, Erie
Monslow, Walter
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Morris, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Wigg, George


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mulley, Frederick
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold
Wilkins, W. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, Li (Abertiliery)


Grey, Charles
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Owen, Will
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grimond, J.
Padley, W. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gunter, Ray
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hannan, William
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)



Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, column 2, to leave out "2s. 10d." and to insert "2s. 3d."
The Amendment deals with self-employed men. We think that they, too, should be relieved of the full impact of the proposed increases.

Question put, That "2s. 10d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 180.

Division No. 98.]
AYES
17.43 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Neave, Airey


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Allason, James
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Michael


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macelesf'd)
Nugent, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle


Atkins, Humphrey
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Barber, Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Barlow, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Barter, John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Botsford, Brian
Hendry, Forbes
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bell, Ronald
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Berkeley, Humphry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bevine, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitman, I. J.


Bldgood, John C.
Hobson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bingham, R. M.
Holland, Philip
Pott, Percivall


Bishop, F. P.
Hollingworth, John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bossom, Clive
Hornby, R. P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Braine, Bernard
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Peter


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees, Hugh


Brooman-White, R.
Jackson, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
James, David
Renton, David


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Jennings, J. C.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Safron Walden)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Russell, Ronald


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Seymour, Leslie


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shaw, M.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Shepherd, William


Cary, Sir Robert
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kimball, Marcus
Smith. Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Langford-Holt, J.
Speir, Rupert


Cleaver, Leonard
Leaver, J. A.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cole, Norman
Leburn, Gilmour
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cordle, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Corfield, F. V.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Costain, A. P.
Lindsay, Martin
Sotrey, Sir Henry


Coulson, J. M.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Summers Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sumner, (Orpington)


Cunningham, Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Curran, Charles
Loveys, Walter H.
Temple, John M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Deedes, W. F.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thornton Kemsley, Sir Colin


de Ferranti, Basil
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Turner, Colln


du Cann, Edward
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tweednmuir, Lady


Duthie, Sir William
McMaster, Stanley R.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fell, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Finlay, Graeme
Maitland, Sir John
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Marmingham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Freeth, Denzil
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Watts, James


Gammons Lady
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gardner, Edward
Marshall, Douglas
Whitelaw, William


Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Neil
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Godber, J. B.
Mawby, Ray
Wise, A. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gough, Frederick
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton
Woodhouse, C. M.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodnutt, Mark


Green, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Worsley, Marcus


Grimston, Sir Robert
Morgan, William



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nabarro, Gerald
Mr. Peel and Mr. Frank Pearson.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Albu, Austen
Healey, Denis
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regie)
Probert, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, Stan
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Purvey, Cmdr. Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Holt, Arthur
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, William


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Reynolds, G. W.


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, Roderic (Cardigan)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Janner, Sir Barnett
Short, Edward


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silverman, Julian (Aston)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Snow, Julian


Callaghan, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Chapman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cliffe, Michael
Kenyon, Clifford
Spriggs, Leslie


Collick, Percy
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. Horace
Stones, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Grossman, R. H. S.
Ledger, Ron
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Daves, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Logan, David
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Sylvester, George


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dempsey, James
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Driberg, Tom
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W, (Huddersfield, E.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Timmons, John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Tomney, Frank


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mason, Roy
Ungned-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Evans, Albert
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Finch, Harold
Milne, Edward J.
Watkins, Tudor


Fitch, Alan
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Monslow, Walter
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moody. A. S
White, Mrs. Eirene


Forman, J. C.
Morris, John
Wigg, George


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthm)
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Grimond J.
Paget, R. T.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Gunter, Ray
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)



Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, column 2, to leave out "2s. 2d." and to insert 1s. 9d.".
This Amendment deals with self-employed women. My hon. Friends have reminded me that all hon. Members of this Committee have an interest in the position of self-employed persons under the National Insurance Scheme. I think that on their behalf I should declare that we all have an interest, but it is not in

our own interests that I move this Amendment. We are thinking of all self-employed persons outside, on whom this additional burden would bear harshly, and we want to mitigate it as far as possible

Question put, That "2s. 2d. "stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 236, Noes 179.

Division No.99.]
AYES
[7.52 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Amery, Rt. Hon, Julian (Preston, N.)
Barber, Anthony


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Arbuthnot, John
Barlow, Sir John


Allason, James
Atkins, Humphrey
Barter, John




Batsford, Brian
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nugent, Sir Richard


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hastings, Stephen
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bell, Ronald
Hay, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Berkeley, Humphry
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Hendry, Forbes
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Bidgood, John C.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bingham, R. M.
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Boasom, Clive
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Percival, Ian


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hobson, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Pitman, I. J.


Brains, Bernard
Hollingsworth, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Brawis, John
Hornby, R. P.
Pott, Percivall


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Howard, John (Southampon, Test)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Prior, J. M. L.


Brooman-White, R.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otto)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Sir Anthony
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Peter


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Jackson, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
James, David
Rees, Hugh


Campbell, George (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jennings, J. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, David


Can, Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cary Sir Robert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Robson Brown, Sir William


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Ronald


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kerans, Cdr J. S.
Seymour, Leslie


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharples, Richard


Cleaver, Leonard
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Shaw, M.


Cole, Norman
Kimball, Marcus
Shepherd, William


Cooper, A. E.
Kitson, Timothy
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Cooper-Key, sir Neill
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Cordle, John
Langford-Holt, J.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Corfield, F. V.
Leavey, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Contain, A. P.
Leburn, Gilmour
Speir, Rupert


Coulson, J. M.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Knox
Lilley, F. J. P.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lindsay, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Dance, James
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Storey, Sir Samuel


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


Beetles, W. F.
Loveys, Walter H.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


de Ferranti, Basil
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lucas, Sir Jecelyn
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Temple, John M.


du Cairn, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Duthie, Sir William
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitrey(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Fell, Anthony
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford. W.)


Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turner, Colin


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Madden, Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Freeth, Denzil
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. B.


Gammans, Lady
Maitland, Sir John
Vane, W. M. F.


Gardner, Edward
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Wall, Patrick


Godber, J. B.
Marshall, Douglas
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhew, Victor
Marten, Neil
Watts, James


Gough, Frederick
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, William


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Green, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Crimston, Sir Robert
Mills, Stratton
Wise, A. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Morgan, William
Woodhouse, C. M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nabarro, Gerald
Woodnutt, Mark


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Heave, Airey
Worstey, Marcus


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey



Harvey, John (Waithametow, E.)
Noble, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Peel and Mr. Frank Pearson.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Awbery, Stan
Blackburn, F.


Albu, Austen
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Blyton, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beaney, Alan
Boardman, H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Benson, Sir George
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leios, S.W.)







Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Bowles, Frank
Hoy, James H.
Proctor, W. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Redhead, E. C.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Reid, William


Callaghan, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reynolds, C. W.


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Clife, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Ross, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Short, Edward


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Mrs. Harriet


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, G Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. Horace
Snow, Julian


Deer, George
Lawson, George
Sorensen, R. W.


de Freitas Geoffrey
Ledger, Ron
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Dempsey, James
Logan, David
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Stones, William


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacColl, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mackle, John
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swingler, Stephen


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sylvester, George


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderafield, E)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fitch, Alan
Marquant, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mellish, R. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Milne, Edward J.
Timmons, John


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Tomney, Frank


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Monslow, Walter
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ginsburg, David
Moody, A. S.
Wainwright, Edwin


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John
Warbey, William


Greenwood, Anthony
Mort, D. L.
Watkins, Tudor


Grey, Charles
Moyle, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, Frederick
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Neal, Harold
White, Mrs. Eirene


Crimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Gunter, Ray
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hannan, William
Owen, Will
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Padley, W. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Healey, Denis
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Woof, Robert


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hilton, A. V.
Peart, Frederick
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman
Zilliacus, K.


Holt, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Cronin and Mr. Ifor Davies.

Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, column 2, to leave out "1s. 6d." and to insert "1s. 3d.".
This Amendment deals with self-employed boys and girls under the age of 18. It is linked with the Amendment already disposed of in line 16, column 2, and was partially debated in principle on the Amendment in line 16, column 1. Therefore, it will be sufficient if I formally move the Amendment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am beginning to wonder whether this Committee has become an automatic machine. I understand that the purpose of the Committee is to state a case, to have a Government

reply and then for other members of the Committee to consider the case which has been stated and the reply. I should like to know the Government's attitude on the Amendment, especially with regard to self-employed boys and girls under 18 years of age. [Interruption.]

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. May we have a little order at this end of the Chamber, Sir James? I cannot hear what my hon. Friend is saying.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir James Duncan): I hope that hon. Members behind the Bar will keep quiet.

Mr. Loughlin: Thank you, Sir James.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I was making the plea that the stage had arrived when we should


have a statement from the Financial Secretary. I plead guilty and admit that for about forty minutes I have not been present in the Committee, because I have been dining. All of us want food at some time, so I am not speaking critically of other members of the Committee who may not have been present.

Dr. King: Is not the answer to my hon. Friend's anxiety that we are under a Guillotine and find it difficult to do what we would very much like to do?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, but the Guillotine on this Amendment has not fallen yet. I am protesting because it appeared from observations that too many hon. Members were regarding the Committee as an automatic machine. Democracy has not become that yet. While time is available, when an Amendment of this character has been moved we are entitled to hear the Financial Secretary's statement concerning it and why he cannot accept it.

Mr. Loughlin: I did not want to intervene in this debate, but I thought that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) had appealed to the Financial Secretary to answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) he would have responded. [Interruption.] I cannot hear even myself. It may well be that I should be delighted, as some hon. Members have said, but it is they who were waiting for dinner, not I. I can stay here, as I usually do, until any hour.
It is a travesty of the proceedings of the House of Commons that so many hon. Members on the opposite side are concerned more about getting through into the Division Lobbies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Look at you own side.']—after the persistent appeals from this side, throughout the whole debate, to have a contribution on any of the Amendments from back bench Members opposite. As I recollect, and I have been present for the whole of the discussion, we have had a minute contribution from one hon.

Member opposite. On our last Amendment, a case was presented from the Front Bench on this side and no attempt was made by the Government to reply. We now move a further Amendment and, apparently, no attempt is to be made by the Government spokesman to answer the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby.

As I have said time and time again this afternoon, unless we arrive at the position where hon. Members on the Government side are prepared to take seriously these issues, which vitally affect the constituents of every right hon. and hon. Member, and attend to their business and the welfare of their constituents, this is a travesty of the proceedings of the House of Commons. I hope that on this occasion at least, the Financial Secretary will attempt to answer the points put by my hon. Friend.

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad to explain why I did not rise a few moments ago in response to the appeal of hon. Members. There is a simple reason. This Amendment would reduce the rate for juvenile self-employed persons—that is, self-employed persons under the age of 18—from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 3d. There are practically no specimens of juvenile self-employed under the age of 18 in existence. Therefore, I did not think that this was quite an occasion for taking the time of the Committee.
In replying to the Amendment, I am a little reminded of a Latin construction which one used to learn in old-fashioned school about futurum fuisse ut, of which there were precisely two specimens in the whole of Latin authors. I suggest that the Committee might be more usefully employed in coming to a decision on this Amendment and spending rather more time on the next Amendment, about which there is a good deal more that is worth saying.

Question put, That "1s. 6d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 179.

Division No.100.]
AYES
[8.10 p.m.


Aitken, W.T.
Barber, Anthony
Bennett, F.M. (Torquay)


Alian, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Barlow, Sir John
Berkeley, Humphry


Aliason, James
Barter, John
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Jullan (Preston, N.)
Batsford, Brian
Bidgood, John C.


Arbuthnot, John
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bingham, R.M.


Atkins, Humphrey
Bell, Ronald
Bishop, F.P.




Black, Sir Cyril
Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Bossom, Clive
Hill, Dr. Rt. lion. Charles (Luton)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfok)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hobson, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Braise, Bernard
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Brewis, John
Hollingworth, John
Percival, Ian


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hornby, R. P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Brooman-White, R.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pitman, I. J.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pott, Percival


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Iremonger, T. L.
Prior, J. M. L.


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jackson, John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cary, Sir Robert
Jennings, J. C.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester. Clark, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rawlinson, Peter


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees, Hugh


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cleaver, Leonard
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, David


Cole, Norman
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Cooper, A. E.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Robson Brown, Sir William


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Cordle, John
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Ronald


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Seymour, Leslie


Costain, A. P.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Sharples, Richard


Couison, J M.
Langford-Holt. J.
Shaw, M.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Leavey, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Cunningham, Knox
Leburn, Gilmour
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Curran, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswiek)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smyth, Brig Sir John (Norwood)


Dance, James
Lilley, F. J. P.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lindsay, Martin
Speir, Rupert


Deedes, W. F.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Hon. Richard


de Ferranti, Basil
Longden, Gilbert
Stevens, Geoffrey


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Loveys, Walter H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


du Cann, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Storey, Sir Samuel


Duthie, Sir William
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Studholme, Sir Henry


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Fell, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Finlay, Graeme
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Temple, John M.


Forrest, George
MacLeod. John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Freeth, Denzil
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Gammans, Lady
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Gibson-Watt, David
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Godlier, J. B.
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Turner, Colin


Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Douglas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gough, Frederick
Marten, Neil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gower, Raymond
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vane, W. M. F.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Grimston, Sir Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Dame Irene


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton
Watts, James


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morgan, William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Nabarro, Gerald
Wise, A. R.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Heave, Airey
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Michael
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hay, John
Nugent, Sir Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Worsley, Marcus


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Hendry, Forbes
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Campbell.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Benson, Sir George
Brockway, A. Fenner


Albu, Austen
Blackburn, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blyton, William
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Helper)


Awbery, Stan
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Beaney, Alan
Bowles, Frank
Callaghan, James







Chapman, Donald
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Randall, Harry


Cliffe, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett
Rankin, John


Collick, Percy
day, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reid, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cronin, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Short, Edward


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Deer, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
King, Dr. Horace
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Snow, Julian


Dempsey, James
Ledger, Ron
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Driberg, Tom
Logan, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacColl, James
Stones, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, Stephen


Finch, Harold
Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sylvester, George


Fitch, Alan
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fletcher, Eric
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward J.
Thorpe, Jeremy


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Mitchison, G. R.
Timmons, John


Ginsburg, David
Monslow, Walter
Tomney, Frank


Gourlay, Harry
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Greenwood, Anthony
Morris, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Grey, Charles
Mort, D. L.
Warbey, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Moyle, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mulley, Frederick
Weitzman, David


Grimond, J.
Neal, Harold
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gunter, Ray
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hall, Rt. Hn. Gienvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker. Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wigg, George


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oliver, G. H.
Wlicock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hannan, William
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Owen, Will
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Healey, Denis
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hilton, A. V.
Pearson. Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woof, Robert


Holman, Percy
Pearl, Frederick
Wyatt, Woodrow


Holt, Arthur
Pentland, Norman
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Zilliacus, K.


Hoy, James H.
Probert, Arthur



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Her Davies.

Mrs. White: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, column 1, after "65", to insert:
not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment".

The Temporary Chairman: I want to make clear that if this Amendment is not carried, the following Amendments
fall:
In line 26, column 1, after "60", insert:
not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment".
In line 27, column 1, at end insert:
not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment".
In line 27,column 1, at end insert:
not including those undergoing full-time instruction at a recognized educational estabilishment".

In line 27, at end add:



s.
d.


11. Non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 who are undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment
1
3

and in line 27, at end add:



s.
d.


11. Non-employed men between the ages of 18 and 65 who are undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment
2
3


12. Non-employed women between the ages of 18 and 60 who are undergoing full-time instruction at a recognised educational establishment
1
9

Mrs. White: I am well aware of that, Sir James.
This Amendment and the others which you have named, Sir James, which


are connected with it deal with the position of students, that is, persons over 18 undergoing full-time education. I would remind the Committee that students are in a peculiar position in that while they are students they are not obliged to pay any contribution. Consequently, not having paid their contributions, when they cease to be students and enter employment they have a choice. One course open to them is that they can leave matters where they stand, in which case their entitlement to benefit is considerably impaired, because their average over the necessary period of years will be diminished. That means that, on retirement, their pension and that of their wives would be less than otherwise, or should they die and leave a widow, her pension and sums paid to dependent children similarly might suffer. The other course of action open to them is that in the first six years of employment they can make up any contribution which they did not pay while they were still students.
The contributions that they are liable to pay as students are at the non-employed rates, which are somewhat different from those which they would pay were they employed. But as soon as they leave the training college or university and take employment they then pay the ordinary employed person's rate of contribution and, if they opt, they can make up retrospectively at the non-employed rate for the period during which they were students.
As long ago as 5th February, 1954, I discussed in the House the question of National Insurance contributions by students. At that time I proposed that the Minister of Education should take cognisance of this in the grants paid to students. I had a reply at some length and with great ingenuity from the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) who, during that period, was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. He pointed out the reasons which convinced him and Her Majesty's Government at that time why an allowance should not be made to students which would enable them to pay these contributions whilst they were still at college.
Only last week the present Minister of Education, in reply to a Question, confirmed that the Ministry was absolutely against making any allowance to students

in their grants which would enable them whilst still studying to pay these contributions. The point was that to exempt them altogether would not be fair to other contributors, and to make an allowance from the Ministry of Education fund would not be fair to the taxpayer.
The Government's attitude, therefore, is that students should make these contributions. An ordinary student is quite unable to do it while at college. Therefore, if he is to make up these contributions and safeguard his position in future or that of his wife and children, he has the option of paying retrospectively during his six years of employment. Included in this amount that he is expected to pay is not merely the contributory part of insurance contribution, but also the health charge, which is what we are discussing on this Amendment. To include this in a retrospective payment seems to me quite illogical and this is the basis of my case on the principle.
The principle of it is that while the man or woman is at college he or she is treated as though the student had contributed as far as the National Health Service is concerned. In other words, the student is fully entitled under the Health Service without question asked. Any treatment that the student may require during his period of study is given. Any medicine or anything else that he may need he obtains on the same terms as anybody else, as though the contributions had been paid.
There is no question, therefore, on the health charges, of any difference being made later, according to whether or not the contributions had been paid. It is on a completely different footing from the insurance part of the payment. The insurance part is, as it were, part of a life-long series of payments which entitles a person in certain circumstances to monetary benefit. It can be reasonably argued, therefore, that it is necessary that these contributions should be paid at some stage or another so that one may be properly, financially and morally, entitled to payment. But this does not apply to the health part, because the person has already had the treatment.
The one-time student is under no legal obligation to make this retrospective


contribution and, therefore, if he chooses not to make it, he can get away with it completely free where the Health Services are concerned. There is no reason why he should not. The law does not say, "You have been having the benefit of the Health Service for the last few years and, therefore, you must pay now."
I shall refer mainly to men, because it is more important to them since they may have dependants who may be affected as well, but let us take the case of the woman at college who gets married immediately she leaves, as happens more and more frequently. She decides not to pay at all the three or four years' contribution while at college. She may have enjoyed the benefit of the Health Service, but she is under no legal obligation whatsoever to make up the health part of the contribution. If she wants to get in her own right insurance benefits, then like anybody else she has to pay the insurance part of it.
One can at least see the logical argument there. But I cannot honestly see that one should say that there is a logical argument for expecting retrospective contributions where the health charges are concerned, particularly as it is completely open to the choice of the individual whether he pays retrospectively or not regardless of whether he has had anything under the Health Service. That is the principle of the matter.
I want now to come to the finances of the matter. I repeat that I shall base my argument mostly on the man's contribution, because it is not quite so important for the woman as for the man. The woman is usually concerned only with her own benefits, whereas it is extremely important that a man should make up in his first six years of employment anything he has missed while a student.
From July next the non-employed rate for a man will be 11 s. 5d. a week. That is the rate at which he will have to pay retrospectively for his student years. If my arithmetic is correct, that comes to £29 13s. 8d. per annum. Therefore, if a person has been studying for three years he has to make up in his first six years of employment roughly £89. Of the £29 per annum which has to be made up at the non-employed rate, seven guineas

represents the health charges. Taken over three years, health charges represent £22 of the £89.
If the man were at college for four years or for three years, and then took teacher training for a year—I want particularly in a moment to refer to teachers—the total amount that has to be made up is about £118, of which about £29 represents the Health Service element. I suggest that these are very considerable sums. As was said when we were discussing the position of married women, earlier, the small contribution that used to be paid was not a matter to worry about, but now it is a quite substantial sum and we really have to take it seriously.
8.30 p.m.
When the young man starts work he has to pay the ordinary insurance contribution like everybody else. I understand that from next July this will amount to 12s. 2d. per week for an employed man. Therefore, he has to pay his 12s. 2d. per week as well as make up what he did not pay during the years when he was a student. According to my reckoning, if the man had been a student for four years his current insurance together with his retrospective payments spread over six years amount together to a total of over £50 a year. If he was only three years in college the total sum comes to a little under £50 a year, but only a matter of 30s. or so. The combined payments that the young man will have to make in his first six years of earning amount to about £50 a year, of which the health part is not the major part, although it is substantial.
In these circumstances, one has to compare what the man has to pay with what he is likely to earn. I have here the scale of salaries for teachers. Teachers form a very large proportion of those who are affected by this provision, because they go to training college or university, or sometimes both. The scale of pay for teachers at present starts at the relatively small figure of £520 a year, and it goes up for someone who has had training by increments of £30 a year, and if one is a graduate one has an additional payment of £90 a year, and if a good honours graduate, another £75. That means that even if one goes to the end of the six years the non-graduate


trained teacher will be getting only £670 a year, the graduate with training but without an honours degree will get £760 and the honours graduate with training will get £835.
If we turn these figures into weekly average earnings to obtain a comparison with average weekly earnings for the country as a whole, it is only the honours graduate with training who, in his fifth year, will exceed the national average. The other teachers, even at the end of their sixth year, will still not have reached the average earnings for men in the country as a whole.
Therefore, the students who are being asked to repay what they have missed while they were students as well as paying their current insurance contributions will be doing so out of incomes—with the exception of the last two years for the honours graduate—which are lower than the average male earnings in the country. It is quite untrue to say that just because someone has been through training college or university he is in the first six years of earning, whatever may happen afterwards, earning more than the ordinary manual worker. He is not; it simply is not so. The figures make it perfectly clear that it does not follow that because one has been to a training college or university one is necessarily getting a very large sum in the early days of earning.
The important thing is that if a man is to make those retrospective payments they have to be made within the first six years of employment, no matter what his ultimate prospects may be. It is, therefore. exceedingly important that the sums which have to be paid should not be so great as to be a disincentive to the person who has to pay, so that he feels. "This is really just too much for me. I just cannot face this extra payment. I will pay my current contributions, but will not make up what I did not pay while I was at college."
The man may be very much too optimistic about all this. He may not realise fully what damage he may be doing both to his own ultimate comfort in his old age and, more important in some ways, to any widow or dependent children if he should by any chance die through illness or accident at an early age. Therefore, it is exceedingly important that the feeling "I cannot face these big pay-

ments as well as the current contributions" should not prevail.
I suggest, therefore, that, although the portion of the payment which represents the health contribution—which is all that we are really entitled to discuss under the Bill—is not a very large one, it is nevertheless sufficiently substantial possibly to turn the scale for someone who is trying to decide whether or not he should face the payment of the sums which he has failed to pay while a student.
I suggest that the extra £29 or so for a four-year student is a substantial sum for someone earning the relatively small amounts which I suggested they might be earning as teachers or as persons in comparable occupation, and that it might mean that someone was, in whole or in part, sufficiently discouraged not to pay the contributions, possibly with serious effects, especially where widows and orphans are concerned. Teachers do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) knows only too well, have pensions for widows and orphans yet, though those may come. That is a very serious aspect of this matter.
I do not wish to detain the Committee, because I know that the Guillotine falls only too soon, but I have made out a substantial case for the Financial Secretary to answer. There is no logic in the retrospective payment of the portion of the contribution which represents the health charge. Although it is not the major part of the charge, it is nevertheless, sufficiently substantial possibly to deter a student from making the payments on which must depend the future happiness and comfort of himself, and, to an even greater degree, if he is so unfortunate, his widow.

Dr. King: My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has raised an important point, which she has stated with her usual clarity and ability. In reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I must say that a number of important points have been involved in previous Amendments, but the reason why we have not been able to discuss them all is due to the fact that the Guillotine is hanging over us. The result is that those who support this Amendment will speak very briefly.
I am pleased to speak in this case on behalf of the National Union of Students, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president. This is a problem which has always existed for the university student. He works hard; he is an adult; he does not draw wages or salary; he gets a grant which is barely enough to live on, and if that grant is conditional on the means of his parents, and if his parents have more than a certain amount of means, then he does not even get subsistence but must exist on the money his parents provide.

Mrs. Slater: Is my hon. Friend also including those students who attend training colleges, especially now that the course for trainee teachers is three years?

Dr. King: I did not wish to give any indication that I was not including those at the teacher training colleges. I was talking of all those who take part in full-time further education.
The question a student must ask himself is whether he should pay the National Insurance contribution. He has the option. He is young, and it is a gamble. He may argue that the chances of all the frailties that flesh is heir to coming to him are less than when he is older. In my own experience—and, I am certain, in the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—if something terrible happens to a university student, then he and his parents are very distressed indeed if they have not taken the cover which this great National Insurance Scheme provides. I feel that we should do everything we can to encourage students not to opt out of Insurance benefits but to opt in.
We can use various methods. The best method would be to pay them an adequate maintenance at college so that this contribution would not be a great financial burden. Obviously, we could get rid of the means test, and then they would not have to think about this contribution in terms of whether they are imposing a second National Insurance contribution on their parents. But if I have carried the Committee with me so far, then certainly what we can do is not to add any of the poll tax element to the charges which we are asking the young students to pay.
The Amendment seeks, in one tiny corner, to reduce the flat rate contribution by 7d., so that the university students will be less inclined to opt out of National Insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East has pointed out that a student has the option, when he starts work, of buying himself into full benefit. But most students go into the teaching profession, which has an inadequate scale of salaries, with a long time to go before the maximum is reached and the period in which a young man can buy himself in is the very period when his salary is at its lowest and when his commitments as a young married man are heaviest.
This is a problem, especially in this day and age, with its fantastic rents and fantastic burdens on young married persons from the moment they get married. I hope that the Financial Secretary, without conceding any of the great principles he has enunciated at various stages in this Committee—principles which we repudiate—will accept this Amendment. We know his keenness for education, and this would be a contribution to the social health of young students. I therefore support the Amendment with pleasure.

8.45 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: On one matter all of us in the Committee would like to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), and that is on having moved an Amendment on a good Committee issue. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have given some thought to this matter and I agree with the hon. Lady that it involves not merely the Health Service contribution scheme, but the whole question of grants to students and other matters with which I used to be rather more intimately concerned some time ago.
The series of Amendments which we are discussing is designed to relieve from contribution all university students over 18 and those attending technical colleges and not least, as the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) said, teacher-training colleges. While it would be out of order to go into this matter at length, we should remember that there is a connection here with one of the recommendations of the Anderson Committee on awards to students, which was to the effect that arrangement should be made


for university students to be able to pay contributions during their courses.
It will be just as well if I remind the Committee once again exactly how matters now stand, because that is highly relevant to the subject of the debate. The position is that a student who spends three years at a college and does not pay contributions would have his single rate of retirement pension reduced by about 2s. if he otherwise had a complete contribution record. I quite realise that the effect on a widow's pension can be more severe. I take the slightly extreme case of a man who dies at about 35 and where the result might be a diminution in his widow's pension of about 10s. a week, although the children's allowances would not be diminished at all.
As the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East fairly said, after leaving college or training college, the student can later make up his contribution record at any time during the next six years of his working life. The hon. Lady was slightly inaccurate in one respect, for the student needs only to average 50 contributions a year and need not pay 52, so that at most he would have to pay 150 times 11s. 5d., which is the non-employment rate after 3rd July, and that comes to £85 12s. 6d. over the six years.

Mrs. White: Surely the average of 50 is over this entire contribution life, so that unless he pays the 52 contributions a year over the time he is at university, if at any time later, either because he goes abroad or for some other reason, he falls behind, he would have nothing in hand.

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Lady is quite right. Over the contribution life as a whole he has to average 50 a year, but that figure of 50 does not apply only to the six years. There is no reason why he should put himself in a better position necessarily by paying the 52 contributions a year during the time when he is having to pay a double contribution. That was the only point I was seeking to make.
We have always realised—and this is part and parcel of the whole scheme—that, for reasons connected with his assessment and the relative advantage of money in his pocket now compared with more money in his retirement pension later on, the student has to choose what he is to do. Whether he decides after

leaving college to make up the contributions, entitling himself to a slightly higher retirement pension and his wife to a possibly more secure position, has always been recognised as a choice essential to the scheme.
I do not want to make too much of this, but the Amendment deals simply with 7d. out of a total of 11s. 5d., and I find it hard to believe that 7d. out of 11s. 5d. would turn the scale in many cases.

Mrs. White: I am arguing about the entire health element in the contribution which a student is expected to pay, but, for reasons of order, one is not able to put forward Amendments to that end.

Sir E. Boyle: I appreciate that. It is important when considering the position which faces a student who has left college to have regard to the magnitude of the sums concerned.
There are two issues here; the issue of principle, and the issue of whether our present arrangements, in financial terms, are fair to students. I have more sympathy with the hon. Lady's first point than with the second. On the issue of principle, I was glad that the hon. Lady, in what I thought was a very reasoned and moderate speech, did not take the point that there was an anomaly in putting a student who chose to pay contributions at a disadvantage. The hon. Lady put the other point, which is fairer, that there is rather an anomaly in that there is an uncovenanted advantage to the student who has used the Health Service while he has been at university or training college and then chooses not to pay contributions. Not simply from the point of view of a Treasury Minister concerned to get more money into the Treasury, but looking at it in terms of what the ordinary man thinks of as fair and just, I agree that it is the greater anomaly.
On the other hand, and I think that the hon. Lady will probably agree—and this is a point I made to my hon. Friend who showed that he had considerable sympathy with this case—it would be administratively very difficult to collect the National Health Service contribution on its own from students who choose not to pay the Insurance contribution. Although the National Health Service does a different job from the rest of


the total Insurance contribution, the one is part of an insurance scheme and the other, as we have agreed again and again—whether one calls it a tax or not is to some extent a matter of semantics—I have never disputed is money which the Exchequer is gathering in to help the financing of a particular service. I have never disputed that, as I think the Committee will agree, and therefore the Health Service contribution performs a different task from the rest of the Insurance contribution.
It is only fair to remember that we have never had the practice at any time, though the Health Service contribution is now a separate legal entity, of collecting it separately from the rest of the Insurance contribution. I think that it would be extremely difficult administratively to do that. That would be my answer to the hon. Lady on the point of principle. She is right in saying that there is an anomaly here. Ministers did consider this carefully when we first brought in the Health Service contribution as a separate legal entity in 1957, but I think that administratively it would be extremely difficult to collect the National Health Service contribution on its own.

Mrs. White: I appreciate that. Would there be any serious difficulty in waiving that contribution for those who are paying retrospectively? All one has to say is: "All you need pay in the six years of employment before this retrospective payment is a stamp of such-and-such value which covers your insurance contribution". Surely that would not present any administrative difficulty?

Sir E. Boyle: That was the next point to which I was coming. I think that there would be real difficulty about waiving this part of the contribution for everybody; in other words saying: "During the next six years you must make up your Insurance contribution so that you shall be able to earn the pension to which you would then become entitled, and so that your wife may be secure from the point of view of a widow's pension if you die early. You must make up the Insurance part of the contribution if we let you off the National Health Service part".
The obvious objection to it is precisely the point which the hon. Lady

made, namely, that all students can use the Health Service during their time as students. If one went as far as the hon. Lady suggests, the obvious conclusion would be that students during their period as students should not have the benefits of the Health Service.
I want to put two other relevant considerations to the Committee. First, I understand the hon. Lady's point about the pay of teachers during the first few years. I think the hon. Lady will agree that there has been a substantial improvement during the last ten years in the starting scale for the pay of teachers, but it is true that throughout most of these debates in the Committee we have for the most part been considering manual workers and wage-earners earning higher pay than they did at one time. The hon. Lady was right to make us think of lower paid salary earners in this connection. On the other hand, it is fair to say that a very high proportion of those being educated at our universities or colleges of advanced technology, or teachers' training colleges, as a result of the education they receive—in a large measure at public expense—are in many cases able to start earning larger salaries than otherwise they would be able to do. I think it would be unreasonable to treat them better than other people of the same age who did not have the advantage of further education.
Although in a sense we are here dealing with a new problem, in another sense we are not. It is true that the National Health Service contribution had no separate legal existence before 1957, but, of course, this problem did not start in 1957. As we have said so often—I hardly like to face the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and say it again—an element of the National Insurance contribution was alloted to the Health Service from the first. I am sorry to make this point again, but in this context I think it is relevant. Here we are not dealing with a problem which began for the first time four years ago. There was no attempt between 1948 and 1957 to reduce the National Insurance contribution paid by students to allow for that, or to maintain that they ought not to be asked to make such a notional contribution to the Health Service. The conditions of liability for the element in the pre-1957 insurance allotted to the


Health Service are the same as the conditions for the post-1957 National Health Service contribution.
For these reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. the hon. Lady was on a perfectly fair point of principle, but I believe there would be administrative difficulties about collecting the contribution on its own; and seeing that all students are able to use the Health Service, I do not think it would be right that those students who wished to draw a full pension should pay for six years after leaving college but be excused the payment of the National Health Service contribution.
On the money side, I appreciate the point the hon. Lady has made and I think she was right to draw our attention to the problems of the lower salary earners. One has to remember that as a result of their college education many will start in better paid jobs than otherwise would be the case. This is not a new problem which started in 1957. With those considerations in mind. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: That was a most astounding speech from the Financial Secretary. He congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) on her clear statement of principle. He even elaborated it to show how sound it is. Then, because the principle is hard to apply and because the Government and the Civil Service would have to do a little work to bring it into full effect, we must alter the principle which the hon. Gentleman so belauded. It was not a speech worthy of the hon. Gentleman. The main point seems to be, as was proved by my hon. Friend, that any woman who marries a prospective teacher is very foolish. That is the real deduction to draw from the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
The Financial Secretary fails to realise that the comparison made by my hon. Friend between the teaching profession and manual workers merely proves that the boasted improvement in the salary scales of teachers has not altered the position of the teacher in the social scale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Key) was contemporary with me as a pupil teacher in the late years of the nineteenth century. He will know that in 1908, for the first

time, I was a candidate at an urban council election. The members of the council said, "Now that we have a teacher as a candidate we shall not be troubled as much about raising the election funds."
One had to find £15 in those days to be a successful candidate in an urban council election in my area. One could spend £10 and lose. People interested in municipal politics of those days know how true that is. I suggested that we should all put our weekly wages down on a slip of paper and hand it to the chairman to read. My pay was 35s. a week and I was the poorest man in the room.
That, as my hon. Friend has proved, is still the position in this profession, on which the future of the country now depends more than ever before. The fact that, once again, we have the principles on which we should pay lauded, and it is pointed out that for a Tory Government it is too hard to stand by a principle, although it makes a good Tory speech, does not meet the problem.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I do not want to make a speech, but to ask the Minister two questions. He made it clear that he and other Ministers have given consideration to this matter. The first question is how many are likely to be involved? The second question, seeing that he is so sympathetic, is this: will he, between now and Report stage, consider doing what is done in other circumstances in which the card is franked? If there are not too many involved, why cannot their cards franked in circumstances of this kind?

Mr. Frederic Harris: I do not want to keep the Committee for long, but I have followed these discussions with great interest and I hope that the Financial Secretary will not mind if I do not particularly take his side on this Amendment.
I do not often agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), but, listening to her tonight, I thought that she put her case extremely ably and clearly. I think that all hon. Members who are present fully appreciate that. Obviously, she had gone into it with very great care and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King)


added more facts from his personal experience. The Minister will not, I hope, think unkindly of me if I say that he can argue the hind leg off a donkey on any occasion, but he gave the impression to me and, I think, to many colleagues, that he was very much in sympathy with the case put on this problem tonight.
I sincerely hope, even if my hon. Friend cannot address the Committee on this particular aspect, he will find some answer to it in due course, as suggested by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). There cannot be a great amount of money involved, but this is a real problem for students. As hon. Members, most of us come into contact with a large number of students and we find that they are up against difficulties. Hon. Members are constantly trying to assist in getting more and more of them to take up the teaching profession. Those of us keenly interested in our constituencies want more and more people to come into the teaching profession.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady particularly centred her remarks on the problems of young teachers who, having gone to tremendous lengths in their studies and treated them as a vocation, find, at the end of the first part of the main road, that they come out poorly in comparison with those who have gone into commerce, and also manual workers, although I speak with no disrespect to them.
With all the opportunities that are open to young people today in business, commerce and in every walk of life, it is a hard job to encourage them to take up the teaching profession. I feel that this Amendment pinpoints the problem, so that we see what we are up against. There is no doubt that by this additional charge we shall be adding to the problems of young students, and I sincerely hope that the Minister, in conjunction with his Treasury colleagues, will in due course, although perhaps not on this particular case, find a solution to it.
If the Financial Secretary will be good enough to note the feeling in the Committee tonight—and I appreciate that the argument has not been put from any party point of view, or with the use of any strong words, or feelings

other than the facts arouse—I think that he would do a lot to encourage students, because this is a real porblem for them. It cannot be that the administrative problem cannot be overcome. We all know, both in business and in the Government, that answers to almost every type of problem can be found, and it cannot be because of administrative difficulty that this problem could not be overcome.

Mr. Houghton: I am bound to remind the Committee that at half-past nine o'clock the absurd Guillotine will fall on this debate. It really is ridiculous that we should be in the middle of a useful and constructive debate of this kind, and that in a few minutes' time it must abruptly be brought to an end. After that, we go on for another two hours which are allotted to a discussion of the Second Schedule. This is not the way to do the business of this Committee. However, the House of Commons has so decided.
We are on this side of the Committee very disappointed that the Financial Secretary had nothing more encouraging to say about this Amendment. From some remarks he made earlier, when we were spending some time dividing on several Amendments dealing with the rates of contributions, he expressed the hope that we could get on to this Amendment, where there was a substantial point to be put. That substantial point has been admirably and clearly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). She has shown how, when we begin to build one thing on another, the ultimate result makes the present arrangements regarding students and their contributions absurd.
It is quite true, as the Financial Secretary says, that this is not in a sense a new problem. It started as a small one, and I am glad that the origins of the Health Service element in the National Insurance contributions are defined by the Financial Secretary in terms more acceptable to me. They are that there was a portion of the National Insurance contribution—an element, as he described it—allotted to the Health Service.
That, I believe, correctly describes what was done in 1946, but it is very different indeed from what has been done since 1957 with a separate National Health Service contribution. However, it began


like that, and the arrangements for students to pay their National Insurance contribution, either while still undergoing an educational course or afterwards, were made when the National Insurance contribution stood by itself, and when it was much smaller than it is now.
But the Government came along to rivet a National Health Service contribution to the National Insurance contribution, and in the following year they rivet another. Now, for the third time, they rivet another one, so that the Health Service contribution is now a substantial addition to a growing National Insurance contribution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East pointed out, when one comes to pay the lot retrospectively in the first six years of employment, the total sum is substantial.
The Financial Secretary spoke of administrative problems. I see none. There should be no difficulty in subtracting from the total amount the National Health Service contribution element when asking the student for the amount he should retrospectively pay to square his account for the National Insurance Scheme. That is not at all insuperable.
What the Financial Secretary is really relying on is the fact that we have put the Health Service contribution on the National Insurance contribution—the two go together. Whether we pay them currently or retrospectively or do not pay them at all, they are always together. That is really his point, and in no case have we been able to separate the one from the other. But even when there is a strong case for separation, as there is here, the hon. Gentleman still feels that he cannot unscrew the Health Service contribution from being a fixture of the National Insurance contribution.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East has said, as we are discussing the additional Health Service contribution in this Bill, that is all that we can try to get rid of in this discussion, although my hon. Friend was arguing cogently and forcefully that relief to be given to these students for the whole Health Service contribution—the amount that started in 1957 and was added to in 1958, as well as the present proposed addition.
The whole position of students under the combined scheme now needs to be

reviewed, having regard to the dimensions of the combined contribution that is now being imposed on these students currently or retrospectively. They have not increased wages out of which to pay their combined contribution during their period of extended education. All that is now being said about encouraging young people to stay at school, encouraging parents to allow their children to stay on at school, the need for education, the need for more technicians, the need for making ourselves the most intelligent and skilled community in the world—all these sound hollow exhortations when we also say, "We will tax you all the way along, and if you do not pay as you earn we shall demand it retrospectively, otherwise we shall 'take the micky' out of your widow or reduce your retirement pension when the time comes."
That is not the way to treat our educated youth. We should be encouraging them by all means in our power to undergo these courses of education. Their brains have to be turned to the national account. As we have 50 million people in Britain maintaining this high standard of life and being promised that it will be doubled in twenty-five years, and all we have to do that with is our skill and our coal—those are about the only natural resources we have—we are bound to express great disappointment with the Financial Secretary's reply.
We beg him to ask the Government to reconsider the whole matter; and to give some assurance at a later stage that the Government have it under review and cannot go on piling up contribution on contribution and expect the conventional arrangements regarding students to be tolerated without protest. There are further increases to come under the National Insurance Scheme—four further increases of 5d. each—and if my prediction is worth anything, as I am sure that it is in this context, there will be more Health Service contribution as well. In those circumstances, we really must challenge what the Government are doing in this connection, and I hope that the Committee will register its disapproval with the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Weitzman: In his desperate effort to find an answer to the very able argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), the Financial Secretary said that as a result


of the Government having spent the money the person who emerged with better prospects was in a better position. I understand that the person who emerges from a training college after that money has been spent receives £520 a year. She ought to have been a shorthand-typist at £12 a week.

9.15 p.m.

Sir E. Boyle: I recognise that in view of the timetable the Committee wish fairly soon to reach a conclusion on the Amendment, but I should like to make one or two comments. The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) should bear in mind that there has never been a time when applications for our teacher-training colleges were in such great numbers; and, because of the expansion of the programme, the applicants have a chance of finding places.

Sir Myer Galpern: What about Scotland?

Sir E. Boyle: I am not referring to Scotland.

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister in charge of a Bill applying to the United Kingdom to inform the Committee that he is not worrying about Scotland?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): That is not a point of order.

Sir E. Boyle: I had a fairly lively reception some years ago from the National Union of Students when I spoke at the time of the General Grant Order, and I am only too well aware from what has been said that after this debate I should probably get an even livelier reception.
I make no complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) was unable to agree with me. He has attended many of our debates, he is a very good listener and he makes less noise than my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) who normally sits on the other side of the Gangway.

I will not say that the Government will not review the matter, because I am sure that not only my right hon. Friend the Chancellor but also my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education will take full note of the views which have been expressed; but I want to be fair to the Committee about this. As the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education gave an Answer in the House on 2nd March in which he said:
National Insurance contributions are not compulsory for students, and grants were never intended to cover them. Arrangements already exist for students if they wish to make up, during their first six years in employment contributions which they did not pay while at college."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1736.]
The hon. Lady said that that Answer seemed to imply that it was unlikely that there would be a major change of policy in the near future. In an interjection, made while sitting down, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) suggested that if the Government were to announce any change of policy, this would obviously be the occasion for it. In an Amendment of this importance I will not give an answer about promising to consider it, because it is the Government's job to have considered it before the Amendment was put down. It would be humbug of the type which bores me in the House when Ministers talk about considering things when it is clear from some fairly important piece of policy that the Government have decided what they intend to do and what they will not do.

We have had a useful debate on an important subject. The Government feel that they must stick to the policy which they have followed in a sense ever since the Health Service scheme was introduced. I cannot promise any change of policy, but my right hon. Friends will take full note of the views expressed.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 239.

Division No.101.]
AYES
[9.19 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Beaney, Alan
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)


Albu, Austen
Benson, Sir George
Bowles, Frank


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blackburn, F.
Boyden, James


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blyton, William
Brockway, A. Fenner


Awbery, Stan
Boardman, H.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Bulter, Herbert (Hackeny, C.)




Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rankin, John


Cliffe, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett
Redhead, E. C.


Collick, Percy
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reid, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Reynolds, G. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cronin, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Crosland, Anthony
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Grossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Ross, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Short, Edward


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Deer, George
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Ledger, Ron
Snow, Julian


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Dodds, Norman
Logan, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
MacColl, James
Stones, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nees (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)
Swingler, Stephen


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderafield, E.)
Sylvester, George


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fitch, Alan
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward J.
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
Timmons, John


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, Frank


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gourlay, Harry
Mort, D. L.
Wainwright, Edwin


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, Arthur
Warbey, William


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Watkins, Tudor


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Grimond, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Collie Valley)
Oliver, G. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hannan, William
Owen, Will
Wilkins, W. A.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Padley, W. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Healey, Denis
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hilton, A. V.
Peart, Frederick
Woof, Robert


Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Holt, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Zilliacus, K.


Houghton, Douglas
Probert, Arthur



Hoy, James H.
Proctor, W. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Dr. Broughton and Mr. Irving.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Deedes, W. F.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Burden, F. A.
de Ferranti, Basil


Allason, James
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Atkins, Humphrey
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Barber, Anthony
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
du Cann, Edward


Barlow, Sir John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Duthie, Sir William


Barter, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Eden, John


Batsford, Brian
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Emery, Peter


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Cary, Sir Robert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bell, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farr, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Fell, Anthony


Berkeley, Humphry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Finlay, Graeme


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fisher, Nigel


Bidgood, John C.
Cleaver, Leonard
Forrest, George


Bingham, R. M.
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Freeth, Denzil


Black, Sir Cyril
Cordle, John
Gammans, Lady


Bossom, Clive
Corfield, F. V.
Gardner, Edward


Bourne-Arton, A.
Costain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Box, Donald
Coulson, J. M.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Godber, J. B.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Braine, Bernard
Cunningham, Knox
Goodhew, Victor


Brewis, John
Curran, Charles
Gough, Frederick


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Currie, G. B. H.
Gower, Raymond


Brooman-White, R.
Dance, James
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
d'Avigdor-Goadsmad, Sir Henry
Green, Alan







Grimston, Sir Robert
Loveys, Walter H.
Renton, David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robson Brown, Sir William


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLaren, Martin
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Russell, Ronald


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Seymour, Leslie


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Sharples, Richard


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Shaw, M.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Shepherd, William


Hastings, Stephen
McMaster, Stanley R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Hay, John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maddan, Martin
Smith, Dudiey (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maginnis, John E.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hendry, Forbes
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Marshall, Douglas
Speir, Rupert


Hiley, Joseph
Marten, Neil
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hobson, John
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Holland, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hollingworth, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hornby, R. P.
Mills, Stratton
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Howard, John (Southampton, Teat)
Montgomery, Fergus
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
More, Jasper (Ludlow
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Morgan, William
Temple, John M.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nabarro, Gerald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Heave, Airey
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nugent, Sir Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Iremonger, T. L.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Jackson, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


James, David
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jennings, J. C.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Turner, Colin


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Johnson, Eric (Blackleg)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Vane, W. M. F.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Watts, James


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kimball, Marcus
Pitman, I. J.
Whitelaw, William


Kitson, Timothy
Pitt, Miss Edith
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Lambton, Viscount
Pott, Percivall
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wise, A. R.


Langford-Holt, J.
Prior, J. M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Leavey, J. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Leburn, Gilmour
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Woodhouse, C. M.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Woodnutt, Mark


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Lilley, F. J. P.
Rawlinson, Peter



Lindsay, Martin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rees, Hugh
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Noble.


Lengden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.

Mr. Haughton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, column 2, to leave out "2s. 10d." and to insert "2s. 3d.".
This Amendment relates to non-employed men between the ages of 18

and 65 and proposes to reduce the increase proposed in the Schedule.

Question put, That "2s. 10d." stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 248, Noes 178.

Division No. 102.]
AYES
[9.26 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bishop, F. P.
Campbell, Gorden (Moray &amp;Nairn)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Black, Sir Cyril
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Allason, James
Bossom, Clive
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Arbuthnot, John
Bourne-Arton, A.
Cary, Sir Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Box, Donald
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Barter, John
Braine, Bernard
Cleaver, Leonard


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Cole, Norman


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Bell, Donald
Brooman-White, R.
Cordle, John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Corfield, F. V.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp;Fhm)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Costain, A. P.


Berkeley, Humphry
Burden, F. A.
Coulson, J. M.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Bidgood, John C.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Crowder, F. P.


Bingham, R.M.
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Cunnigham, Knox




Curran, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Currie, G. B. H.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Prior, J. M. L.


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Deedes, W. F.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Proudfoot, Wilfred


de Ferranti, Basil
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, James


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kitson, Timothy
Rawlinson, Peter


du Cann, Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Duthie, Sir William
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rees, Hugh


Eden, John
Langford-Holt, J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leavey, J. A.
Renton, David


Emery, Peter
Leburn, Gilmour
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Robson Brown, Sir William


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roots, William


Fell, Anthony
Lilley, F. J. P.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin
Russell, Ronald


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Seymour, Leslie


Forrest, George
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sharples, Richard


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert
Shaw, M.


Freeth, Denzil
Loveys, Walter H.
Shepherd, William


Gammans, Lady
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Gardner, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gibson-Watt, David
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLaren, Martin
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Godber, J. B.
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Goodhart, Philip
Mutely, Rt. Hon. John
Speir, Rupert


Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gough, Frederick
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gower, Raymond
MacLeod, John (Rose &amp; Cromarty)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
McMaster, Stanley R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Green, Alan
Maddan, Martin
Storey, Sir Samuel


Grimston, Sir Robert
Maginnis, John E.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maitland, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marshall, Douglas
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marten, Neil
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hay, John
Mills, Stratton
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hendry, Forbes
Morgan, William
Turner, Colin


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nabarro, Gerald
Tweedamuir, Lady


Hiley, Joseph
Heave, Airey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Michael
Vane, W. M. F.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, Sir Richard
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hopson, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Dame Irene


Hollingworth, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Watts, James


Hornby, R. P.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Whitelaw, William


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wise, A. R.


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peel. John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, C. M.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Woodnutt, Mark


Jackson, John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Worsley, Marcus


James, David
Pitman, I. J.



Jennings, J. C.
Pitt, Miss Edith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pott, Percivall
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Brockway, A. Fenner
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Albu, Austen
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Deer, George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Delargy, Hugh


Awbery, Stan
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dempsey, James


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Chapman, Donald
Dodds, Norman


Beaney, Alan
Cliffe, Michael
Driberg, Tom


Benson, Sir George
Collick, Percy
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Blyton, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Boardman, H.
Cronin, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Crosland, Anthony
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Grossman, R. H. S.
Evans, Albert


Bowles, Frank
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Finch, Harold


Boyden, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fitch, Alan







Fletcher, Eric
Logan, David
Ross, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Edward


Forman, J. C.
MacColl, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Snow, Julian


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Greenwood, Anthony
Manuel, A. C.
Spriggs, Leslie


Grey, Charles
Mason, Roy
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Millan, Bruce
Stones, William


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Milne, Edward J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Grimond, J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, Walter
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moody, A. S.
Swingler, Stephen


Hannan, William
Morris, John
Sylvester, George


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, Arthur
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Healey, Denis
Mulley, Frederick
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Neal, Harold
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thornton, Ernest


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Thorpe, Jeremey


Hilton, A. V.
Oliver, G. H.
Timmons, John


Holman, Percy
Oswald, Thomas
Tomney, Frank


Holt, Arthur
Owen, Will
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hoy, James H.
Paget, R. T.
Warbey, William


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Weitzman, David


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Peart, Frederick
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Probert, Arthur
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Kelley, Richard
Randall, Harry
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Redhead. E. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


King, Dr. Horace
Reid, William
Woof, Robert


Lawson, George
Reynolds, G. W.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Zilliacus, K.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)



Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Irving and Mr. Ifor Davies.

It being after half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [6th March], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That this Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill:

The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 176.

Division No. 103.]
AYES
[9.40 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R.
Dance, James


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Allason, James
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Deedes, W. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Burden, F. A.
de Ferranti, Basil


Atkins, Humphrey
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Barber, Anthony
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M


Barlow, Sir John
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
du Cann, Edward


Barter, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Duthie, Sir William


Botsford, Brian
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Eden, John


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bell, Ronald
Cary, Sir Robert
Emery, Peter


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Farr, John


Berkeley, Humphry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fell, Anthony


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Finlay, Graeme


Bidgood, John C.
Cleaver Leonard
Fisher, Nigel


Bingham, R. M.
Cole, Norman
Forrest George


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Foster, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Cordle, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bossom, Clive
Corfield, F. V.
Freeth, Denzil


Bourne-Arton, A.
Costain, A. P.
Gammons, Lady


Box, Donald
Coulson, J. M.
Gardner, Edward


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crowder, F. P.
Godber, J. B.


Brains, Bernard
Cunningham, Knox
Goodhart, Philip


Brawls, John
Curran, Charles
Goodhew, Victor


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Currie, G. B. H.
Gough, Frederick




Gower, Raymond
Loveys, Waiter H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Renton, David


Green, Alan
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Grimston, Sir Robert
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robson Brown, Sir William


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaren, Martin
Roots, William


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Russell, Ronald


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Seymour, Leslie


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Sharples, Richard


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Shaw, M.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Shepherd, William


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Hastings, Stephen
Maddan, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hay, John
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maitland, Sir John
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hendry, Forbes
Marshall, Douglas
Speir, Rupert


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Marten, Neil
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hiley, Joseph
Matthews Gordon (Meriden)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hobson, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Storey, Sir Samuel


Holland, Philip
Maydon, Lt.1Cmdr. S. L. C.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hollingworth, John
Mills, Stratton
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hornby, R. P.
Montgomery, Fergus
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Morgan, William
Temple, John M.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Nabarro, Gerald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Heave, Airey
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Noble, Michael
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hutchison. Michael Clark
Nugent, Sir Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Iremonger, T. L.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Jackson, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


James, David
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jennings, J. C.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Turner, Colin


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tweedemuir, Lady


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
van Strauhenzee, W. R.


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Vane, W. M. F.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Watts, James


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pilkington, Capt. Sir Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kimball, Marcus
Pitman, I. J.
Whitelaw, William


Kitson, Timothy
Pitt, Miss Edith
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Lambton, Viscount
Pott, Percivall



Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Langford-Holt, J.
Price, David (Eastielgh)
Wise, A. R.


Leavey, J. A.
Prior, J. M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Leburn, Gilmour
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Woodhouse, C. M.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Woodnutt, Mark


Lilley, F. J. P.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Woreley, Marcus


Lindsay, Martin
Ramsden, James



Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rawlinson, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Longden, Gilbert
Rees, Hugh
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)


Albu, Austen
Crosland, Anthony
Ginsburg, David


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gourtay, Harry


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Greenwood, Anthony


Awbery, Stan
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grey, Charles


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Beaney, Alan
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Benson, Sir George
Deer, George
Grimond, J.


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, Hugh
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blyton, William
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Boardman, H.
Dodds, Norman
Hannan, William


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Driberg, Tom
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Hayman, F. H.


Bowles, Frank
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Healey, Denis


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Albert
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Finch, Harold
Hilton, A. V.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fitch, Alan
Holman, Percy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fletcher, Eric
Holt, Arthur


Chapman, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Houghton, Douglas


Cliffe, Michael
Forman, J. C.
Hoy, James H.


Collick, Percy
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Galpern, Sir Myer
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)







Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke on-Trent, C.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Oliver, G. H.
Swain, Thomas


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Swingler, Stephen


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Will
Sylvester, George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Palley, W. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Kelley, Richard
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Thornton, Ernest


Kenyon, Clifford
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, Frederick
Timmons, John


King, Dr. Horace
Pentland, Norman
Tomney, Frank


Ledger, Ron
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Probert, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Lipton, Marcus
Proctor, W. T.
Warbey, William


Loughlin, Charles
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Watkins, Tudor


MacColl, James
Randall, Harry
Weitzman, David


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rankin, John
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mackie, John
Redhead, E. C.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Reid, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mallalleu, E. L. (Bragg)
Reynolds, G. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Manuel, A. C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mason, Roy
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Mellish, R J.
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Millan, Bruce
Short, Edward
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Milne, Edward J.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mitchlson, G. R.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Monslow, Walter
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Woof, Robert


Moody, A. S.
Snow, Julian
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Morris, John
Sorensen, R. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Mort, D. L.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Moyle, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mulley, Frederick
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Cronin and Mr. Lawson.


Neal, Harold
Stones, William

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS OF NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, 1957.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out, "and be deemed to have had effect".
It is a very great pity that because we are galloping through the Bill at such a speed we should be unable to discuss a number of these Amendments, both important and not so important.
The Amendment has been tabled so that we may hear from the Government why the words to which I refer are in the Schedule. The Schedule is an example of legislation by reference at its worst. It refers to no fewer than five Acts by name in paragraph 1 (2), and, of course, quite a number which are included under the title "National Insurance Acts" and are referred to in the principal Act of 1957. Therefore, it is important that we should know exactly what it is the Government mean. Paragraph 1 (1) reads:
Each of the Acts mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph shall, to the extent specified in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph be deemed as from the appropriate date to have been included among the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act;"—

that is, the Act of 1957—
and that subsection, and any reference in the principal Act to 'the National Insurance Acts',"—
according to the 1957 Act, that means any of the National Insurance Acts between 1946 and 1956—
shall have effect, and be deemed to have had effect, accordingly.
I do not know why the words:
… and be deemed to have had effect …
are needed, because the words
… be deemed as from the appropriate date …
have to be interpreted in the light of paragraph 1 (6), which reads:
… 'the appropriate date', in relation to the National Insurance Act, 1957, means the date of the passing of the principal Act. and, in relation to each of the other Acts mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, means the date of the passing of each such Act respectively.
One assumes that when one says, as is said in paragraph 1 (1):
… be deemed as from the appropriate date …
that that reference is, in each case, to the date at which the Act came into operation. That being so, I want to know why we need the words
… and be deemed to have had effect, accordingly,


If those words were omitted, paragraph I (1) would simply read:
Each of the Acts mentioned …
etc.
… shall … be deemed as from the appropriate dale to have been included among the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) of section one of the principal Act; and that subsection, and any reference in the principal Act to 'the National Insurance Act', shall have effect accordingly.
That would mean that this would go into operation as from the date when the principal Act, and the Acts referred to in that Act, came into operation. That may not sound clear, but it seems to me to be clear.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask my hon. Friend for an explanation? He used the word "etc." That can be a very big word. Will he say whether it is in the original Act, or whether it was his interpolation?

Mr. Willis: I do not think I used that word. It is not one that I am in the habit of using, but if I did it means all those Acts to which this paragraph refers. I do not know how many it actually refers to, but no fewer than five are mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), and they also include all the Acts put together under the title "National Insurance Acts"—all those passed between 1946 and 1956.
The only point I make is that if the words
… and be deemed to have had effect …
were left out, sub-paragraph (6) would still mean that each of the Acts mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) would come into operation as from the date that this Bill itself came into operation. The Acts included within the title, "National Insurance Acts", would operate as from the date laid down in the 1957 Act.
In view of that, before we commence to discuss this important matter, we should have an explanation from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: Very clear.

Mr. Willis: I am glad to have had that tribute. I hope that it will be made even more clear after an explanation from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley). Having had explanations from both sides of the Committee,

we shall be able to get our teeth into the matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, and I congratulate him on the clarity with which he has explained a very difficult matter. He addressed himself to the last words of the subsection, which are:
… and be deemed to have had effect, accordingly.
He addressed himself to what those words meant.
Anyone administering this subsection will first have to arrive at what it actually means and what it is deemed to mean, and I am sure that the Minister will be the first to appreciate the impropriety of legislation by reference, such as this. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the subsection refers to five or six Statutes which are set out, or adumbrated, in subsection (2). It is perfectly clear that anyone trying to arrive at a meaning of a Clause, at either what it actually means or what it is deemed to mean, will need to resort to a law library containing the five or six Statutes. That much is perfectly clear, and I am sure that it is clear to the Minister. I am sure that the Minister would be the first to realise that this is a most objectionable example of legislation by reference.
What are the objections to legislation by reference? I shall indicate briefly what they are. When a subsection refers to a number of Statutes, in this case, five or six, it involves the person seeking to construe the subsection in having recourse to a law library containing all those Statutes. Alternatively, if he does not have access to such a law library, what is he to do to find out what the subsection means, or what it is deemed to mean?
He will have to divest himself of his responsibility. He will not go into a law library, but he will take proceedings before the law courts and try to place the responsibility for the construction of the subsection off his shoulders and on to the shoulders of one of the learned judges of the law courts. That will involve proceedings of one kind or another, which will obviously put the parties concerned to considerable


expense. It may be that the parties concerned are poor people who not only cannot afford these increased charges but who cannot afford the law costs which are incidental to their attempts to find out what paragraph means, or what it is deemed to mean.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will my hon. and learned Friend explain the procedure to be adopted in the case of an appeal in Scotland?

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I thought that it was obvious to everybody what the procedure would be. I am sure that it must be obvious to the Minister. If not, all that he has to do is to call in the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to ask them what will be the nature of it. Or he can call in the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland or all four Law Officers to determine what form the proceedings should take.
To put it in its simplest form for the benefit of my hon. Friend who asked this question, it will probably take the form of Chancery proceedings; a construction summons designed to construe the particular paragraph, not according to the views of the litigants in the particular litigation, but according to the views of the learned judge. Counsel on both sides will be briefed, having first been approached by solicitors in the ordinary course of business. If they are properly briefed they will be paid fees, and ultimately, perhaps, after some days spent discussing the pros and cons of this difficult paragraph and after referring to authorities ancient and modern, the learned judge will come to some conclusion and he will then have to consider the question of costs.
Shall he award costs to the plaintiff in the construction summons—[HON. MEMBERS "Yes."]—or shall he award costs to the other side? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It may be a private person who has had to initiate these proceedings—and costs may be given against him. If he is a poor person and is unable to pay the costs, he may be thrown into bankruptcy. Alternatively, the costs may be given against the local authority. In that case, the local authority may have to raise the rates.

[Laughter.] The money must be found from somewhere.
The courts of justice do not operate for nothing. Not only will the relevant fees on the summons, on the writ, on the defence, and on the various documents have to be paid, but counsels' fees and the fees of solicitors——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a further point of elucidation——

Mr. Hector Hughes: Just a moment until I come to a full stop. That is one of the difficulties which will arise under this difficult paragraph. It will arise from the fact that the unfortunate administrators of the paragraph—be they public officials, local authorities, or private individuals—will be confronted with that type of difficulty.
As I have said, they will have to refer to law books. The case may be decided by the judge of first instance. It is not the type of case in which it would be fair to involve a jury. It is the type of case which, having been decided by the judge of first instance, may go to the court of appeal. It is an extremely difficult matter. These construction summons are very difficult, and, having gone to the court of appeal, and the court of appeal having either affirmed the trial judge or reversed him, and having considered the question of costs, it may then go from the court of appeal to a higher judicial tribunal.
Ultimately it may come to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, and we all know how difficult a whole series of proceedings such as this would be. In that way great injustice may be done, not only to the private persons involved, but also the local authorities, to the public authorities, to the ratepayers and to a whole series of people and bodies. I ask the Minister to take account of these considerations and realise that not only may he be inflicting an increase in Health charges on unfortunate, poor people who are unable to pay them, but he may be imposing on private citizens, local authorities and public authorities the obligation to pay a great sum of money for a bill, perhaps several bills. of costs in the civil courts.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman now come to a full stop, or only to a semicolon? Has he


borne in mind the fact that legal aid may be applied for both in Scotland and in England? As the system of legal aid in Scotland is slightly different from the legal aid scheme in England, can he explain the grievances which would arise in Scotland as against those in England?

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am afraid that I should he out of order were I to discuss those differences. It would be in order to discuss the differences between the application of this Bill—or of the Act which eventually, unfortunately, it may become—to Scotland and to England, respectively. But my hon. Friend is tempting me to do something which would he out of order in asking me to discuss the legal aid schemes. I do not think they are within the scope of this Amendment.

Mr. Barber: The Committee will have appreciated that the point raised by this Amendment is fairly narrow, but it has implications of a wider variety than might be appreciated at first sight by those considering the Amendment in all its simplicity.
I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) for explaining his Amendment with such lucidity that now nobody can be in doubt about what he had in mind when he moved it. I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) for his classical exposition of the implications of legislation by reference.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that the main operative words of retrospection in this sub-paragraph of the Second Schedule appear in the third and fourth lines, beginning with the words:
… as from the appropriate date to have been …
From that he will appreciate that there is an element of retrospection, but, lest anybody should be in any doubt about it, I must say that the Schedule does not impose any retrospective liability.
Having explained the significance of the words in the third and fourth lines, to which no Amendment is proposed, I must point out that the latter part of this sub-paragraph is only a consequential provision, yet it is in the latter part the hon. Gentleman proposes to make an Amendment. As I am sure the hon. And

learned Member for Aberdeen, North will agree, an elementary principle of drafting is that consequential provisions must be consistent with the main operative provision on which they are dependent. For those reasons, obviously, it would be most inappropriate to delete these words which are consistent with the earlier words accepted by the hon. Gentleman who proposes that we should delete the later words.

Mr. Willis: I am not very satisfied with that. What difference would it make if these words were left out? The hon. Gentleman should tell us that. We could then judge whether it is better to leave them in or to take them out. We cannot make a judgment of that character unless we know what difference it would make. I have suggested that to leave them out would not make any difference at all. In view of sub-paragraph (6), "deemed to have had effect" means from "the appropriate date" to have been included in the appropriate Act. Will the hon. Gentleman explain as lucidly as I managed to explain the meaning of my Amendment and what difference it would make if those words were left out?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before the Economic Secretary replies, may I call his attention to the fact that he could accept an Amendment leaving in the paragraph the word "accordingly" so that the paragraph would read:
shall have effect accordingly",
leaving out the very difficult words:
and be deemed to have had effect".

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. We are not discussing an Amendment dealing with the word "accordingly", but an Amendment dealing with the words, "and be deemed to have had effect."

Mr. Barber: If it is accepted that the earlier words in lines 6 and 7 should be included in this paragraph, for consistency's sake alone it is obviously right that these later words should also be included. I would not say for a moment, without further consideration, that the effect of this sub-paragraph would be modified if these words were deleted, but what I say without any hesitation whatever is that the subparagraph with these words in is properly drafted. If these words were out it would be badly drafted and might


conceivably give rise to some doubt. Therefore, I advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) raised this point. I have been looking at the wording of the paragraph and I think that there is far more in this than we have heard from the Economic Secretary. He said that the Amendment was on a very narrow point, but had very wide implications. He took great care not to tell us what they were.
If the Economic Secretary had known the efforts and simple ingenuous nature of Scottish hon. Members, he would have looked a second time at any Amendment we put down because we like to get a Minister to explain what he knows about a Bill. What we want to know is exactly what are the implications of these words. When we see in a Bill that something which is the result of what we are doing now is "deemed to have had effect", not now but over some years, we want to know what is going on. The hon. Gentleman said that no one was being placed in retrospective liability. Is there being justified, or given statutory right, a liability which hitherto has been exacted with a certain measure of doubtful legality?

Mr. Barber: Mr. Barber indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I want to know why we have this paragraph at all. As I understand, it relates to Section 1 (1) of the principal Act. Section 1 (1) of that Act lays down those who are liable to pay National Health Service contributions. I gather that there have been changes in certain laws since then and, obviously, they have not hitherto been tied in to Section 1 of the principal Act.
Now, the Government, after the changes that have taken place since 1956, are tying the thing together, and are telling us not only that the effect will be as from now, but as from an "appropriate date and that it will be deemed always to have had that effect. The hon. Gentleman seemed to chide my hon. Friend for not having changed or sought to amend the words "appropriate date".

Mr. Barber: Mr. Barber indicated dissent.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman looks further down the Notice Paper, he will see an Amendment seeking to leave out the reference to the appropriate date altogether, and I had in mind exactly the same point.
I want the hon. Gentleman to come clean as to what the Government have actually discovered so that they found it convenient to have this Schedule at all. We did not have it in the last Contributions Act of 1958. Evidently, this involves quite a number of Acts that have been passed, including the National Insurance Act, 1957, the certain sections of the No. 2 Act of 1957, the Family Allowances (National Insurance) Act, 1959, the National Insurance Act, 1959, and the National Insurance Act, 1960, all of which have made changes in relation to the definition of persons who are liable in respect of National Health Service contributions.
As I read it, that has not been tied up with the original National Health Service Contributions Act, so that it may well be that there is a certain measure of legal doubt whether the Government have been right in respect of certain of the National Health Service contributions which they have been levying, and so they are seeking in this Schedule to make absolutely sure that they have been covered. That is why they say that it shall be deemed, as from the "appropriate date", to have been included in those Acts, and, therefore, the effect would be that they would be deemed to have had effect from the time of the passing of those Acts. That is what we understand from sub-paragraph (6) and the definition of the "appropriate date".
I think that the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that although this is a narrow point, it has wide implications. It is due to the Committee that he should tell us just what those implications are before we can decide whether we should clear up the conscience of the Government by allowing them to have this paragraph as it is drafted.

Mr. Weitzman: My point is merely a drafting point on the same lines as that raised by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I know that the Economic Secretary is a lawyer, and that, therefore, he will be able to construe this, but I


cannot find any meaning to be attached to the words—
and be deemed to have had effect.
If the words were simply"—
shall have effect accordingly
the meaning would be absolutely clear, but what is the reason for the addition of the words—
and be deemed to have had effect
I do not know. I see no need for them at all, particularly, as has rightly been pointed out, we have in the third line of the first sub-paragraph of the Schedule the words—
be deemed as from the appropriate date.
What does that mean? Quite frankly, as a lawyer, I would certainly give the opinion that it has no effect at all, and that it means nothing. The Economic Secretary as a lawyer, knows perfectly well that the effect of putting in words in this way is to throw doubt on the whole thing and ensure litigation being raised on the matter.

Mr. Barber: The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has raised a point of some importance in referring to the fact that on occasions by inserting words which in fact are meaningless we can raise doubts if the court has to construe the words in question. He will appreciate, however, that it is equally true to say that doubt can be cast on the construction, implication or application of any part of an Act of Parliament if words are left out which might well, reasonably and consistently with other words, have been put in. This is the point so far as these words are concerned. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked me, in effect, what purpose was served by these words in line 10. The fact is that, without them, the paragraph might create a doubt in the mind of a court where, for all practical purposes, no doubt exists.
Since I have been asked about it, perhaps I can refer in a little more detail to subsection (1) of Section 1 of the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, where it is stated:
As from the appointed day, every person who, either as an insured person or as an employer, pays, or is liable to pay, contributions under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1956 … shall be liable, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, to pay

contributions … known … as national health service contributions.
As the law stands, nobody doubts at all that under that subsection contributors to National Insurance are liable to pay National Health Service contributions, notwithstanding the fact that the rates of National Insurance contributions are no longer those which were fixed in the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1956, which are referred to in that subsection of the National Health Contributions Act, 1957. But the Amendment by the present Bill of that subsection of the 1957 Act which is referred to in the Bill as the principal Act might be held to imply that the rates of the National Insurance contribution as fixed from time to time by the successive National Insurance Acts are also relevant to the question of the liability to pay National Health Service contributions.
Therefore, if the amendment contained in the Schedule—and I refer not to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but to the amendment made by the Schedule itself—were not retrospective in this sense the Schedule might conceivably raise a doubt as to whether a contributor to National Insurance is at present liable to pay National Health Service contributions at all, since the rates in force are no longer the rates fixed by the Acts, 1946 to 1956.
I should like to make it absolutely clear, as I did earlier, that by doing this we are, in fact, making clear for the future a position which might be unclear if the Bill became an Act without those words, but I cannot stress too strongly that the Schedule does not impose any liability retrospectively. Perhaps I can put it in this way, so that the Committee may be in no doubt as to the meaning of the words. There are no persons who, at any time since the passing of the 1957 Act, have not been liable to pay National Health Service contribution who are, by virtue of this Schedule, to be deemed to be liable to pay them and who, accordingly, might now be compelled to pay them in arrear. Therefore, there is no retrospective liability, but there might be some misunderstanding in the future if these words were not included.
There is one further point. When I have been talking about these words and the retrospective element in paragraph


1 (1) of the Schedule, I have been referring not only to the words that the hon. Gentleman proposes should be left out, but also to the earlier words in line 6. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North realises that these two sets of words hang together; that the one is, as it were, consequential on the other. If I confine myself for a moment to the words that the hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out in the last line of the subparagraph, I will say quite frankly, as I indicated earlier, that if the words proposed to be left out by the Amendment were left out it is very unlikely that the court would put a different construction on this sub-paragraph, but, for the reasons I gave earlier in respect to the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North it would be bad drafting whereas, at the moment, the sub-paragraph is properly drafted.

Mr. Weitzman: I can understand the Economic Secretary's explanation of the meaning of paragraph 1 (1) of the Second Schedule, but this Amendment deals only with the words
and be deemed to have had effect".
The Economic Secretary says that we should leave these words in the Schedule because the position will be clearer as a result, but the point which is being pressed on him is that, far from making it clearer, the words are unnecessary, mean nothing and only add to the mystery of the matter. They may give rise to litigation, as the Economic Secretary agreed may happen if words in an Act of Parliament mean nothing.
This matter can be tested simply. He will be the first to agree that if words are unnecessary they should be removed. I hope that he will bear with me while I look at the paragraph and demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that the words are quite unnecessary. The paragraph begins
Each of the Acts mentioned in the next following sub-paragraph shall … be deemed as from the appropriate date to have been included among the Acts mentioned in subsection (1) …
We therefore have it clearly laid down that each of those Acts is to be deemed from the appropriate date to be included

among the Acts mentioned in that subsection and
shall have effect … accordingly".
The hon. Member will see that I have omitted the words
and be deemed to have had effect".
Without the words, we know what the paragraph means, and the language could not be simpler. The words
and be deemed to have had effect
are otiose and unnecessary and ought to be removed.

Mr. Willis: Having listened twice to the Economic Secretary I have come firmly to the conclusion that these words are not necessary and that what I tentatively suggested in the first place is correct. I thought that when the hon. Member had explained the matter we should be able to get our teeth into it. So we can, with this result: in the first place, he said that the words had very wide implications, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) immediately asked what they were, we discovered that there are no wide implications at all.

Mr. Barber: The wide implications which were adumbrated by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).

Mr. Willis: That is not true. It is only a get-out.

Mr. Ross: That is what the Economic Secretary would like us to think.

Mr. Willis: The Economic Secretary said that the words had wide implications, but we have since learned that they have not. After my hon. Friend asked him what the wide implications were, he "came clean" and we had an acceptance by him that the words could be omitted without altering the meaning of the paragraph. That is why we put down the Amendment—to find out whether the words had any meaning and whether they need be in the Clause.
It is about time that the House revolted against the practice of Parliamentary draftsmen of cluttering up legislation with all sorts of unnecessary words. We have a number of Amendments down, and had they been accepted they would have reduced the length of the Schedule considerably, as would this Amendment. Why should people whose job it is to interpret Acts of Parliament


be compelled to spend unnecessary time and labour in going over Clauses and Schedules to find out what they mean when the Clauses and Schedules would have had no different meaning if half the words had been left out?
10.30 p.m.
It is about time that the House of Commons protested against this kind of thing. We try to the best of our ability to do so in the Scottish Standing Committee, but this Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House and we thought that we might apply the same principles to the Schedule and try to reduce its length. The result might have been a more intelligible Schedule. To clutter it up with words such as these only adds confusion to all concerned and adds to the expense involved in consulting lawyers as to the meaning. We should divide on this Amendment as a protest against the clumsy manner in which the Schedule has been drafted and against the use of all sorts of unnecessary words to say something that could have been said quite simply.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I addressed the Chair at length upon the aspect that this

Division No. 104.]
AYES
[10.33 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Cunningham, Knox
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Curran, Charles
Hastings, Stephen


Allason, James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Arbuthnot, John
Dance, James
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hendry, Forbes


Barber, Anthony
Deedes, W. F.
Hicks Beach, Major W.


Barter, John
de Ferranti, Basil
Hiley, Joseph


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hill, Dr. R. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Berkeley, Humphry
du Cann, Edward
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bidgood, John C.
Eden, John
Hobson, John


Bingham, R. M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Holland, Philip


Bishop, F. P.
Emery, Peter
Hollingworth, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hornby, R. P.


Bossom, Clive
Farr, John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Bourne-Arton, A,
Fell, Anthony
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Box, Donald
Fisher, Nigel
Hughes-Young, Michael


Boyle, Sir Edward
Forrest, George
Hurd, Sir Anthony


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Foster, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Burden, R. A.
Freeth, Denzil
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gammans, Lady
Jackson, John


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Gardner, Edward
Jennings, J. C.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Godber, J. B.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhew, Victor
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gough, Frederick
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gower, Raymond
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portemth, W.)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Kimball, Marcus


Cleaver, Leonard
Green, Alan
Kitson, Timothy


Cole, Norman
Grimston, Sir Robert
Lambton, Viscount


Cooper, A. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Langford-Holt, J.


Corfield, F. V.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Leavey, J. A.


Costain, A. P.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Leburn, Gilmour


Coulson, J. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

is legislation by reference, but another aspect which has not yet been expressed is that it is retrospective legislation, because the words sought to be left out are
and be deemed to have had effect"—
that is to say, deemed in the past to have had an effect which, in the past, they have not had. This is retrospective. It will have an adverse effect upon the people concerned by the construction of the earlier Acts. Therefore, not only is the wording objectionable on the ground that this is legislation by reference, but it is also objectionable on the still more serious ground that it is retrospective legislation.

Reference has been made to the fact that the Minister is a member of the Bar. He will, no doubt, take these aspects into account, and particularly the second one that this is retrospective legislation.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 225,

Lilley, F. J. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Lindsay, Martin
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Speir, Rupert


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Litchfield, Capt. John
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Loveys, Walter H.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Studhotme, Sir Henry


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Peel, John
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Percival, Ian
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


McLaren, Martin
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Pitman, I. J.
Thomas Leslie (Canterbury)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayr)
Pott, Percivall
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


McMaster, Stanley R.
Prior, J. M. L.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maddan, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Turner, Colin


Maginnis, John E.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ramsden, James
Vane, W. M. F.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marten, Neil
Rees, Hugh
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Mawby, Ray
Renton, David
Watts, James


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roots, William
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maydor., Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Mills, Stratton
Russell, Ronald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Montgomery, Fergus
Seymour, Leslie
Wise, A. R.


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sharpies, Richard
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Morgan, William
Shaw, M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Nabarro, Gerald
Shepherd, William
Woodhouse, C. M.


Heave, Airey
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Woodnutt, Mark


Noble, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Nugent, Sir Richard
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)



Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Finlay and Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Eric
Loughlin, Charles


Albu, Austen
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forman, J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mackie, John


Awbery, Stan
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacMillan, Malcom (Western Isles)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Cmtrthn)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Heaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Benson, Sir George
Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, A. C.


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mason, Roy


Blyton, William
Grey, Charles
Mellish, R. J.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Milne, Edward J.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Grimond, J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bowles, Frank
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Coins Valley)
Winslow, Walter


Boyden, James
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moody, A. B.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hannan, William
Morris, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Moyle, Arthur


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, Frederick


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Denis
Neal, Harold


Chapman, Donald
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Cliffs, Michael
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Collick, Percy
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oliver, G. H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hilton, A. V.
Oswald, Thomas


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holman, Percy
Owen, Will


Cronin, John
Holt, Arthur
Padley, W. E.


Crosland, Anthony
Houghton, Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hoy, James H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies. Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, Frederick


Doer, George
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Norman


Delargy, Hugh
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dempsey, dames
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Dodds, Norman
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefleld)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Randall, Harry


Edelman, Maurice
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rankin, John


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Kelley, Richard
Redhead, E. C.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kenyon, Clifford
Reid, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
King, Dr. Horace
Reynolds, G. W.


Evans, Albert
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Finch, Harold
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fitch, Alan
Logan, David
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)







Ross, William
Sylvester, George
White, Mrs. Eirene


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleld)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Smith, Eills (Stoke, S.)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Snow, Julian
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thorpe, Jeremy
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Soskioe, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Timmons, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Ly[...]n
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stones, William
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywo[...]d)


Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Weitzman, David
Zilliacus, K.


Swain, Thomas
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Swingler, Stephen
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Lawson.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
I move this Amendment because I should like to give the Economic Secretary an opportunity of giving one of his lucid explanations of what this subparagraph means. This covers the point which he said was made in relation to the words "the appropriate date." Perhaps he will tell us why he has decided on these "appropriate dates." Could he spend a little time justifying this proliferation of qualitative words—"each," "such" and "respectively"? As far as we can see, they do not mean a thing and are quite unnecessary.
We notice that the "appropriate date" is to be a date very considerably in the past in relation to the National Insurance Act, 1957, for sub-paragraph (6) says:
… 'the appropriate date', in relation to the National Insurance Act, 1957, means the date of the passing of the principal Act,"—
that is, the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, which was given the Royal Assent on 17th July, 1957—some time before the National Insurance Act. Sub-paragraph (6) goes on:
and, in relation to each of the other Acts … each such Act respectively.
I feel that this means that we are getting retrospective conditions of some kind. I am still not clear about the implications. If we do not get an answer now, we shall seek to get it during debate on the Schedule as a whole.

Mr. Barber: As the hon. Member will realise, the purpose of sub-paragraph (6) is to explain and define the meaning of the words "appropriate date" referred to in sub-paragraph (1). Without subparagraph (6) there might be some doubt as to what the "appropriate date" was in each case. I assume that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that there would be some doubt.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross: Otherwise no appropriate date would be mentioned at all.

Mr. Barber: No. The hon. Gentleman will realise that it is necessary to specify an appropriate date. The appropriate date is in every case the date of the passing of the Bill, except in the case of the National Insurance Act, 1957.

In relation to that Act it means the date of the passing of the principal Act, which is the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957. The reason for that is, of course, that the National Insurance Act, 1957, was, as he will remember, passed before the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first person to agree that it would not have been desirable to have produced the result that the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, was to be deemed to have had effect from the date it was actually passed. That is the reason why that Act has to be treated differently from the other Acts. That accounts for the length of the sub-paragraph and the words "each such" and "respectively" to which he referred. I think that if it had not been for this differentiation between the National Health Service Contributions Act, 1957, and the other Acts it might have been possible simply to have incorporated the words in sub-paragraph (1) which would have had the desired effect without having to have a separate sub-paragraph.
As for the effect of this sub-paragraph, the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, appreciate that in dealing at some length on the previous Amendment with the purpose of sub-paragraph (1) I was dealing with the purpose of that sub-paragraph in the knowledge that the "appropriate date" referred to in that subparagraph was the appropriate date as defined in sub-paragraph (6).
I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, because I know there are some important Amendments to be moved in the future. Therefore, I should like only to stress that there might well be difficulties of interpretation if these provisions of paragraph 1 were not included, and I should also like to stress, as I did on the previous occasion, that this Schedule, including paragraph 1 (1), does not impose any liability retrospectively. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman will not press his point, so that we can get on to the very important Amendments yet to be considered.

Mr. Ross: We are indebted to the Economic Secretary for the delightful terms in which he has explained so


lucidly just exactly what this thing does not mean. Is it not quite fantastic that we have this drafting? We have got something which is innocent of purpose when what is essential to the Government could have been so clearly and simply put. The appropriate date is mentioned in the first sub-paragraph and then we have five more sub-paragraphs to read before we discover what "appropriate date" means. Then we have to get an explanation from the Economic Secretary.
I doubt very much whether there are many hon. Gentlemen on the other side who really know yet what it means and fewer still who know why it is here at all. The more the hon. Gentleman proclaims the innocence of the purpose, because there is no retrospective liability, he says, the more we have to point out that what we have is retrospective legislation and so he is putting something right somewhere. I have more than a feeling that what has thus been covered up is past blunderings in past legislation. We may be able to extract a little information when we discuss the Question, "That this be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
However, as the Guillotine is about to fall once again and as we have other important Amendments to discuss, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 4, line 43, to leave out paragraph 2.

The Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): It may be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendments in page 4, line 44, leave out from "Act" to "subsection" in line 45, and in page 5, line 5, after "Treasury", insert:
and the Secretary of State jointly.

Mr. Willis: Paragraph (2) of the Schedule is that which transfers the responsibility for making regulations in respect of certain contributions from the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Treasury. Having studied this very closely, we fail to find any satisfactory reason why these powers to make regulations should be transferred. The power is to be found

in Section 3 (7) of the principal Act, which says:
The Minister of Health and the Secretary of State may jointly make regulations specifying a class of masters or members of the crews of foreign-going ships (as defined by the regulations) and either—

(a) excepting employers from liability to pay national health service contributions in respect of persons of that class, or
(b) reducing, to such extent as may be specified in the regulations, the rates of national health service contributions payable by employers in respect of persons of that class; and different provision may be made by regulations under this subsection in respect of different classes of persons."

I have read that so that the Smoke Room boys who have come into the Chamber in the last half-hour may have some inkling of what they are doing, as it is obvious that many of them do not.
It is difficult to find any reason why these powers should be transferred to the Treasury. I should have thought that the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State were the best people to judge whether contributions in respect of certain people ought to be reduced. They are able to judge from experience whether there are factors leading to the reduction of the contributions of certain groups of people. They are in a better position to do so than the Treasury is.
I suppose that once again the answer must be that this is a taxing Bill and that all taxing Bills should be the responsibility of the Treasury. That can be the only reason. We in Scotland are very much opposed to powers being taken from the Secretary of State and vested in the Treasury. I remind the Government that the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs, which three or four years ago inquired into the devolution of responsibility for Scottish affairs, recommended that wherever possible power should be transferred from United Kingdom Departments to the Secretary of State. The Government are flying in the face of those recommendations.
I am sure that some of my hon. Friends want to say something about the Minister of Health, but I am talking about the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. We are vigorously opposed to the Treasury taking any powers——

Mr. John Hall: The hon. Gentleman said that before.

Mr. Willis: I am saying it again so that hon. Gentlemen might know the strength of feeling amongst Scottish hon. Members on this subject. It is not often that we get an opportunity to express our feelings, and when we do it is only right that we should do it in a manner which might convince hon. Gentlemen of our sincerity. This is not a laughing matter.

Mr. Hall: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Treasury ought to have its powers removed in England as well? If he does, I might support him.

Mr. Willis: That is the purpose of the Amendment. I am delighted that, after having spoken for only four minutes, I have managed to convert one hon. Gentleman opposite. The Amendment seeks to prevent the Treasury from taking power from the Minister of Health, and if the hon. Gentleman supports the Amendment we shall be delighted. We shall welcome him. We shall give him pride of place in the Division Lobby and let him go to the head of the queue. We would like him to convert his hon. Friends to our point of view.

Mr. Hall: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to removing all powers from the Treasury. I would be very much in favour of that.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman is once again crawling out of this. I am always interested in watching the antics of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They march up the hill and then they march down again. When one suggests that they prove the sincerity of the sentiments which they are expressing, they start crawling away. Show your courage by going into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Hall: The hon. Gentleman is inviting the Chairman to show his courage by going into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Willis: I am inviting the hon. Gentleman to go into the Division Lobby to show his courage.
Might I summarise the reasons why we want paragraph 2 withdrawn? First, we do not think that these functions could be more adequately fulfilled by the Treasury. Therefore, we do not see any reason why they should be transferred from the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the

Treasury. Secondly, we are opposed in principle to the transfer of powers from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Treasury.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will regard the Amendment with favour. I very much doubt that he will. So far he has not looked with favour on anything. We have heard plenty of kind words and expressions of sympathy. We have heard occasional kind words for my hon. Friends for the excellent manner in which they have presented their cases, but we have not had the goods delivered. The hon. Gentleman has not given us a single thing during our discussions on the Bill, and I suggest that this is an opportunity for him to redeem himself and show that he occasionally does more than make pleasant speeches, that he does in fact concede something. I trust that he will give the Amendment favourable consideration.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I should not like the Committee to think that this is a matter which stirs the feelings only of hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. I was glad to see the reaction of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and sorry that he thought it necessary to modify his attitude immediately afterwards. What has depressed and impressed me throughout the proceedings on this Bill is that the Civil War and 300 years of struggle behind us to deal with the taxing powers of the Government and of the Treasury—which the hon. Member for Wycombe still regards as his natural adversary; the fact that the taxpayer is still safeguarded by a period of six years in which to make an appeal; the elaborate machinery and the powers of the courts to see that he is not ill-treated—all that is thrown away in a brusque and rather wanton fashion; and now we are developing a new system of poll tax by stamp.
We have failed to secure from this Government any concession for the widows, apprentices, students, or any other category of people on whom this burden is to be laid, and now they will not even consider a modification of the abrupt rubber stamping of the Treasury. Perhaps it is not without significance—the Ship Money tax has been discussed in this House of Commons before—this little tentative step giving the Treasury


to tax directly the crews of foreign going ships. How much further is it to be extended? This will be taken as a precedent, and we shall be asked not to make frivolous objections and delay debates. We shall be accused of trying to spin out the discussions of Measures which, in the opinion of hon. Members opposite, are confined to this poll tax, this stamp tax, this new system which is to be protected by none of the safeguards which have been enjoyed by the taxpayer for centuries after the struggles of this House of Commons to defend. That is what I find depressing.
I find it depressing that the bright idea of someone can be put into effect and they cannot be bothered to consult the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland. The attitude is that it is only a taxing matter; let the Treasury do it. If we allow this little inroad into our ancient rights regarding taxation, I have no doubt that next year we shall be asked to approve provisions for taxation over a wide field to be introduced by regulation by the Treasury without any consultation in Parliament or the imposition of any of the safeguards which we normally have for the process of taxation. I hope that the Financial Secretary will treat this matter more seriously than the Economic Secretary has treated previous Amendments.

Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly endeavour to treat this matter seriously, but when I think of the criticisms of the Bill made by hon. Members opposite, I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is so keen that Scotland should be so closely associated with it.

Mr. Ross: Not Scotland—the Secretary of State.

Sir E. Boyle: I quite understand that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been present on a number of occasions at the earlier stages of this Bill. He has the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East more often than I do but I have much enjoyed that experience during these debates.
As I think the Committee will realise, the general purpose of paragraph 2 is to transfer to the Treasury from the Ministry of Health and the Secretary State for Scotland powers to make regulations under Section 3 (7) of the 1957 Act, which

gives power to specify classes of masters or crew members of foreign-going ships and to reduce the employer contributions paid on their behalf. I think I can give the Committee information about what this concession involves.
The reason for the concession which is envisaged in this provision is that employers of masters and crew members of foreign-going ships may be relieved of part of the employer contribution on the grounds that they are obliged to provide and pay for medical treatment for seafarers during periods of incapacity abroad. I think that is generally accepted. In practice, the current employer contribution is 5½d. a week and the employer contribution in respect of this class is 2½d. a week. The point of the paragraph is quite simple. Now that the Treasury is to have general responsibility for the Bill I think it reasonable that power under Section 3 (7) of the 1957 Act should be transferred to the Treasury as well.
Perhaps it would not be out of order if I were to say a word or two about each of the three Amendments, which clearly are linked. The effect of the first would be to leave with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland as at present the power to make regulations for employers of seagoing mariners. If I were to accept the Amendment the power would remain with the Health Ministers as it is now. I am not going to say that this is a matter of absolutely vital importance. All I say is that I think it would be much tidier that a regulation-making power under a Bill which has become a Treasury responsibility should itself lie with the Treasury. All through these proceedings I have never lost sight of the fact that the Treasury takes full responsibility for this Measure. Treasury Ministers will be responsible on the Floor of the House for its working. Treasury Ministers will reply to correspondence arising out of this Bill. I therefore think it much tidier and more satisfactory that the regulation-making power under a Bill which has become a Treasury responsibility should lie with the same Department.
The next Amendment would have the effect that, if the power were transferred to the Treasury, it would be transferred in such a way that neither the Treasury nor the Health Ministers could revoke


or amend previous regulations under the similar provisions of the 1957 and 1958 Acts. That would not seem at all satisfactory, because this power to revoke or amend is necessary if new reduced rates at any time in future are to be established. Without the words it proposes to leave out, it would not be possible to increase the employer contribution for this group of employers. We should be tying our hands for the future in a very undesirable way if we were to accept that Amendment. I hope that whatever the hon. Member decides to do on other Amendments he will not press that one.
The next Amendment has the effect of associating the Secretary of State for Scotland with the Treasury. The Minister of Health would no longer have this power to make regulations. I suppose that the purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the Treasury should not dabble by itself alone in matters which may affect Scotland. That means in terms of this limited issue—I want to put to the Committee what we are discussing—that employers of mariners whose place of business is in Scotland should not be subject to direction by the Treasury alone. It rather reminds me, if I may give this reminiscence, of a time when the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was dissatisfied with our Private Bill procedure and carried his opposition to the point of suggesting in a Measure that the students of Ashridge should all be taught courses in the Private Bill procedure of the House of Commons. I suggest that this is taking a rather large hammer to crack a limited and small nut.
This Amendment also makes sense only on the assumption that there is any special Scottish significance in what is proposed. I do not think that is so. The negotiations for all the employers are carried out by the Merchant Shipping Federation, which is equally responsible for Scottish as for English or Welsh employers. There is absolutely no significance in the change from the Minister of Health to the Treasury, and I should have thought that it followed from Treasury responsibility for the Bill that all functions under the Bill should be reasonably transferred to the Treasury.
I agree that the Treasury must mind its behaviour whenever it involves itself with Scottish affairs—as I tried to do on my visit to Scottish national museums last autumn—and I think we all realise in the Treasury the importance of devoting proper attention to Scottish affairs. I do not believe that the Amendment in page 5, line 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is necessary or desirable, because in the negotiations that are carried out by the Merchant Shipping Federation that body is responsible for Scottish as well as for English and Welsh affairs.
As there is one more rather important Amendment to come, I hope that with that explanation the hon. Gentleman may feel inclined to seek to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Ross: The Financial Secretary was certainly very genial in his approach, but not very helpful. I would suggest that the next time he goes to Scotland he does not confine his visit to Scottish museums and St. Andrew's House, which are more or less the same thing.

Sir E. Boyle: I did not. I addressed Scottish exporters and was given some extremely good Scotch whisky.

Mr. Ross: Then the Financial Secretary can now go and tell the Prime Minister that addressing Scottish exporters is fun.
He told us that in this Clause no significant changes were being made. Why is this being done at all, then? The Financial Secretary proceeded to tell us that it is because it is far tidier as this is now a Treasury responsibility. Is he right about that? What is the Treasury going to do about this Bill once it is in force? Is it still a Treasury responsibility? The legislation and getting it through the House is a Treasury responsibility. The Financial Secretary knows that as well as I do, or if he does not it is high time that he did. But the collection will be for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The Ministry of Pensions will account for it to the Treasury, and the Ministry of Pensions can account to the Ministry of Health on the one hand and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the other in respect of their share of what is forthcoming. So the participation of the


Treasury in the actual practicalities of this Bill are practically nil. All the Treasury has done is to lay down policy, and now at long last it has accepted responsibility for the legislation resulting from that policy.
I do not doubt that there already have been regulations. There must be, since the Financial Secretary gave us rates, and these were drawn up by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health. I would tend to think that rather than discuss this matter with the Treasury they discussed it with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The Financial Secretary made another point about the effect that one of the Amendments would have on these regulations already made. With all respect, I do not agree. Having read the original Act and that particular subsection, full power is given to the Treasury or whoever is responsible for bringing this matter before the House. This is not done by Statutory Instrument. This is one of the more pleasing features of the changes being made. It is the Minister who

will have to come to the House and put forward these regulations and these changes once they come in. I hope the Financial Secretary will see the tidiness of that.

I am unconvinced that this change should be made. The Financial Secretary has said that if the first Amendment were accepted the sun would rise, tomorrow. The National Health Service contributions will still be collected. Regulations which have to be made about foreign-going seamen will still be made as satisfactorily as in the past. Why on earth should the Treasury now decide to come and interfere in this Bill? Because the Financial Secretary has given no justification for the change proposed, I advise my hon. Friends to vote for our Amendment to leave out paragraph 2.

Question put, That the wards proposed to be left out to "including" in line 44, stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 234, Noes 172.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Longden, Gilbert
Pearson, Frank (Clltheroe)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Loveys, Walter H.
Peel, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Percival, Ian
Studhoime, Sir Henry


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


McLaren, Martin
Pitman, I. J.
Taylor, W. d. (Bradford, N.)


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pott, Percival)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Gromarty)
Prior, J. M. L.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
proudfoot, Wilfred
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Maddan, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Maginnis, John E.
Ramsden, James
Turner, Colin


Maitland, Sir John
Rawlinson, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Marten, Nell
Rees, Hugh
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Mawby, Ray
Renton, David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roots, William
Watts, James


Mills, Stratton
Hoyle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
Russell, Ronald
Whitelaw, William


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Seymour, Leslie
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Morgan, William
Sharpies, Richard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Nabarro, Gerald
Shaw, M.
Wise, A. R.


Neave, Airey
Shepherd, William
Woirige-Cordon, Patrick


Nugent, Sir Richard
Simons, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Skeet, T. H. H.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Woodnutt, Mark


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Worsley, Marcus


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Spearman, Sir Alexander



Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Speir, Rupert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Able, Leo
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Albu, Austen
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleld, E.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Manuel, A. C.


Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ginsburg, David
Mason, Roy


Awbery, Stan
Gourley, Harry
Mellish, R. J.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Millan, Bruce


Beaney, Alan
Grey, Charles
Milne. Edward J.


Benson, Sir George
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. dames (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Moody, A. S.


Blyton, William
Grimond, J.
Morris, John


Boardman, H.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, Arthur


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mulley, Frederick


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hannan, William
Neal, Harold


Bowles, Frank
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Boyden, James
Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Healey, Denis
Oliver, G. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Henderson, Rt. H n. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Owen, Will


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Padley, W. E.


Callaghan, James
Hilton, A. V.
Paget, R. T.


Cliffe, Michael
Holman, Percy
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Collick, Percy
Holt, Arthur
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Douglas
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, James H.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crosland, Anthony
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Peart, Frederick


Crossman, it. H. 8.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, Norman


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)



Deer, George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Randall, Harry


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rankin, John


Dempsey, James
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Redhead, E. C.


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Reid, William


Driberg, Tom
Kenyon, Clifford
Reynolds, G. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
King, Dr. Horace
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Ross, William


Evans, Albert
Logan, David
Short, Edward


Finch, Harold
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fitch, Alan
MacColl, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallowed)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleid)


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)







Snow, Julian
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, D. J. (heath)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thorpe, Jeremy
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Spriggs, Leslie
Timmons, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Stones, William
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Swain, Thomas
Weitzman, David
Zilliacus, K.


Swinghsr, Stephen
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Sylvester, George
White, Mrs. Elrene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Mr. Irving and Mr. Redhead.


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill.

Mr. Ross: As the result of the Guillotine, we have been denied the right to discuss some very important Amendments. But this is a very important Schedule, and in the light of what little explanation we have already had in respect of it from the Economic Secretary it is only fair that we should give the Financial Secretary an opportunity to give us an adequate explanation why these amendments to the 1957 Act are proposed, for they do not appear on the face of it to be very necessary and, in relation to what we gathered on the first Amendment, really do not mean much at all, and also why they are here in so many words.
We are dealing with a Schedule which we are told is of little or no importance, which takes up far more than any other part of the Bill, and a Schedule which, in relation to its language, certainly demands the attention of every hon. Member who is concerned about the clarity of the law. There are some strange phrases here, and some new ones. In paragraph 5 there is something which I have never seen in an Act of Parliament before. It states:
the words from 'and the payment' onwards are hereby repealed.
What that means I do not know. An explanation ought to be given to the Committee, but we shall not have an opportunity to have it. However, out of the generosity of heart that is always in evidence on this side of the Committee, I am prepared to give what time remains for the Financial Secretary to explain what the three main purposes of the Schedule are.

Sir E. Boyle: I am glad that by sensible use of our time in the two days

in Committee we have had occasion to discuss, with only one exception, all the Amendments to which hon. Members opposite attached importance.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should be fair about this. We had to withdraw Amendments which we would rather have had discussed. We had to curtail our discussion on many important Amendments.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think I shall withdraw what I said, but I will certainly in the last minute or two say something about the Second Schedule, which is brought into effect by Clause 1 (3).
It is a little complicated at first sight but, I think, quite simple in practice. The first paragraph substitutes an up-to-date definition of liability to pay National Health Service contributions which is exactly the same as liability to pay National Insurance contributions for a definition which has been rendered obsolete by the passage of events. What the paragraph does is to extend the reference which is made in the 1957 Act to the 1946–1956 Insurance Acts to cover the five further National Insurance Acts which have been passed since the National Insurance Act, 1956. That is the first function of the Schedule.
The second paragraph, which we have discussed at some length, transfers to the Treasury a power to make regulations about employer contribution for foreign-going seamen. I do not think I could add to that in view of the discussion that we have just had——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Order [6th March], to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.

Question put, That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill:—

Division No. 106.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Nugent, Sir Richard


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle


Allason, James
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesfd)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Barber, Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Barlow, Sir John
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Barter, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Botsford, Brian
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hendry, Forbes
Peel, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Percival, Ian


Berkeley, Humphry
Hiley, Joseph
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bidgood, John C.
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bingham, F. M.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitman, I. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss Edith


Black, Sir Cyril
Hobson, John
Pott, Percival)


Bossom, Clive
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bourne-Arton. A.
Hollingworth, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Box. Donald
Hornby, R. P.
Prior, J. M. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brains, Bernard
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brewis, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ramadan, James


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Rawlinson, Peter


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bullus, Wing Commander Erie
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Hugh


Burden, F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. It.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Jackson, John
Renton, David


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Jennings, J. C.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roots, William


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Russell, Ronald


Cary, Sir Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Seymour, Leslie


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharpies, Richard


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Shaw, M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, 8.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Shepherd, William


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Simons, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Cleaver, Leonard
Kimball, Martins
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cole, Norman
Kitson, Timothy



Cooper, A. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)


Cordle, John
Langford-Holt, J.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Corfield, F. V.
Leavey, J. A.
Speir, Rupert


Costain, A. P.
Leburn, Gilmour
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Coulson, J. M.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stevens, Geoffrey


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cunningham, Knox
Lilley, F. J. P.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Curran, Charles
Lindsay, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Dalkeith, Earl of
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


d 'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford. N.)


Deedes, W. F.
Longden, Gilbert
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


de Ferranti, Basil
Loveys, Walter H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


du Cann, Edward
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Eden, John
McLaren, Martin
Thornton, Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Emery, Peter
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tilney, John (W avertree)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maclean, Sir Fltzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)
Turner, Colin


Farr, John
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fell, Anthony
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Vane, W. M. F.


Finlay, Graeme
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Forrest, George
Madden, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Foster, John
Maginnis, John E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maitland, Sir John
Wall, Patrick


Freeth, Denzil
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Ward, Dame Irene


Gammons, Lady
Marten, Neil
Watts, James


Gardner, Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Codber, J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhart, Philip
Marion, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wise, A. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Cough, Frederick
Montgomery, Fergus
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Morgan, William
Woodnutt, Mark


Green, Alan
Nabarro, Gerald
Worsley, Maraud


Grimston, Sir Robert
Heave, Airey



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Edward Wakefield and Mr. Noble.

The Committee divided: Ayes 237, Noes 170.

NOES


Abse, Leo
Hannan, William
Pentland, Norman


Albu, Austen
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Probert, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, Stan
Henderson, R t. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Randall, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Rankin, John


Benson, Sir George
Hilton, A. V.
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Holman, Percy
Reynolds, G. W.


Blyton, William
Holt, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hoy, James H.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Ross, William


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Short, Edward


Boyden, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Snow, Julian


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, Percy
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, John
King, Dr. Ho[...]lace
Stones, William


Crosland, Anthony
Lawson, George
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Crossman, R. H. S.
Ledger, Ron
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Swain, Thomas


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Logan, David
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Sylvester, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacColl, James
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, George
Mackie, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


de Freitas Geoffrey
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, Hugh
Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)
Thornton, Ernest


Dempsey, James
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Dodds, Norman
Manuel, A. C.
Timmons, John


Driberg, Tom
Mason, Roy
Tomney, Frank


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edelman, Maurice
Millan, Bruce
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Milne, Edward J.
Watkins, Tudor


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, David


Evans, Albert
Moody, A. S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Finch, Harold
Morris, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fitch, Alan
Moyle, Arthur
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Fletcher, Eric
Mulley, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Neal, Harold
Williams, D. J. (heath)


Forman, J. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David
Owen, Will
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Greenwood, Anthony
Paget, R. T.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Grey, Charles
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Zilllacus, K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Parker, John (Dagenham)



Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES,


Grimond, J.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Cronin and Mr. Irvine


Hall, Rt. Hn. Gienvil (Coins Valley)
Pearl, Frederick

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill to the House, pursuant to Order [6th March].

Bill reported, without Amendment: to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS (LEICESTERSHIRE SERVICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

11.40 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: On 28th February, I received from the British Transport Commission details of a proposal which it had made to withdraw its passenger train services between Rugby (Midland) and Leicester (London Road) and completely close the line through Rugby Wharf to Wigston South.
Ever since I was elected Member of Parliament for Harborough at the last General Election, time and time again I have met the predominant fear of many of my constituents that sooner or later we would be deprived of rail communications between Leicester and the southern part of the county. That fear has been expressed to me many times, and I have heard it at interviews and in the villages.
We have five separate railway lines running through the southern part of the county. They are the London and North West from Market Harborough to Rugby; the line which runs through Wigston North Junction to Nuneaton; the Midland line running from Market Harborough to Leicester; the Great Central line running through Rugby to Leicester; and the Midland line also running through Rugby to Leicester, but traversing ground different from that covered by the Great Central line.
Harborough is in the heart of England and, as one would expect, through the constituency there run many of the main traffic routes, both road and rail, which cover the country. Tonight, I want to deal specifically with two of the lines I have mentioned—the Great Central line, which runs from London, St. Marylebone, through Rugby and Leicester to the North, and the Midland line running from Rugby to Leicester and going to the North and connecting at Rugby with the London, Euston, line.
I make it quite clear that I am not an advocate of any useless relics on the grounds of sentimentality or for any other reason. I want nothing better than to see the British Transport Commission pay its way, and in that I am sure that I agree with my right hon. Friend the

Minister of Transport. I accept that one of the ways in which the Commission can be made to pay its way is by closing unremunerative branch lines which have no hope of being made to pay. But the proposals about Southern Leicestershire are a different kettle of fish. This is not the closure of some unremunerative branch lines, but Southern Leicestershire's wholesale deprivation of rail communications.
I understand that the proposals which I received from the Commission on 28th February have been already submitted to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. It is proposed, amongst other things,
to withdraw all passenger services between Rugby (Midland) and Leicester and close down completely the double track line between Rugby and Wigston South.
This includes the complete closure of four such Midland stations as Ullesthorpe, Leire, Broughton Astley and Countesthorpe.
The proposals go on to mention alternative facilities for passengers between Rugby and Leicester:
Passengers between Rugby and Leicester displaced by the withdrawal of the rail services in question can, however, avail themselves of the alternative rail services between the Great Central line stations at Rugby Central and Leicester Central.
This is actually stated on the closure report drawn up by the British Transport Commission.
I think that it was Scott who said:
O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!
Only last Friday, eleven days after the production of its report of 27th February, the British Transport Commission held a meeting in Leicester for management and workers of British Railways and explained to them its proposals to close thirty-four Great Central line stations, including the stations which are mentioned as alternatives to those stations listed for closure in the proposals of 27th February. If the British Transport Commission plans to close these Great Central line stations, why has it given them as alternatives to the stations it has already proposed to close? If it does not propose to close them, why did it hold such a meeting? The effects of closing the Midland line and the Great Central line will be very widespread, particularly in Southern Leicestershire.
There are four or five points I should like to mention. My right hon. Friend may or may not be aware of the main roads entering Leicester from the South, namely the A.50, the A.426 and the A.46. He may have had the pleasure of travelling along them, but I advise him to avoid them during the morning, mid-day and evening rush hours.
What will be the position on those roads in a year or two when people living in the Southern part of Leicestershire have to travel about twenty miles by road before they can get to a station to get on a train to get to work, which is what it will mean if these two railway lines are closed? What will happen to the villagers of Leire who daily travel to Leicester and Rugby to work? What will happen about their daily newspapers which come by train? At the moment there is no alternative bus service to the village. What will happen to the villagers of Ullesthorpe who daily travel to Rugby or Leicester to attend hospital?
Can my right hon. Friend tell me how to reply to the Headmaster of Lutterworth Grammar School, who has written complaining that over 250 children travel home by train to Whetstone, Ashby Magna and Leicester after the school bus has left, there being no other suitable buses on which to travel? Again, at present the people of Ashby Magna go by train to work and to attend doctors' surgeries in Leicester, Lutterworth and Rugby.
Does not my right Friend consider that reasonable rail facilities are the entitlement of people living in a civilised country, on much the same lines as they are entitled to a reasonable telephone service, main roads, electricity, water and sewerage systems?
I wish to refer to the proposals which I mentioned earlier, which I received on 28th February, to close down the four stations I have mentioned on the Midland line between Leicester and Rugby. I have already challenged the suggestion that alternative Central line facilities would be available. I now challenge the accuracy of the figures contained in the proposals of the Commission for Ullesthorpe, Leire, Broughton, Astley and Countesthorpe stations. According to the Commission's statistics, 147 people were in regular daily

travel between those four stations and either Leicester or Rugby. Doubling that figure to account for the return journey, we get a figure of 294, and multiplying it by six working days, we have a figure of 1,764, which is the figure on which the Commission based its case to the Transport Users Consultative Committee.
A census was taken of the traffic at those four stations last week, and it makes interesting reading. I submit that the facts are so at variance with the figures in the Commission's proposals that it calls for a complete withdrawal of the scheme and a reappraisal. The total number of people alighting or joining the trains during last week was not 1,764, but 3,133. The Commission's figures are wrong by approximately 78 per cent. The figures I have given do not include through passenger traffic between Rugby and Leicester in both directions.
I submit that the proposals of 27th February are based on inaccurate information and that they should be withdrawn. Could not the services on the Midland and Central lines, now operated with steam locomotives, be operated by 2-car diesel units arranged to travel in conjunction with local bus services? Here we are not dealing with the closure of a small branch line but with the threatened closure of two main lines running through the heart of England. An increase in receipts of 416 per cent. was achieved by the new diesel service operating between Leeds and Barnsley in one year, and an increase of 269 per cent. by the service between Birmingham and Lichfield. I have already submitted plans to my right hon. Friend in this connection for the Central line.
I ask the Minister not to allow southern Leicestershire to be entirely denuded of its train service which would make it impossible for those living in the country to work in the cities.

11.55 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner: I propose to speak for only a few minutes, but I think it right that an hon. Member from this side of the House should say something in support of what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said in his plea to the Minister.
We have a very short time in which to discuss a matter of considerable importance, particularly to the residents of the respective areas to which the hon. Member referred and to Leicester itself. The proposals put forward are much too drastic and do not take into consideration the fact that facilities must be afforded to people to get to work and carry on their ordinary avocations such as coming into the city from time to time for shopping and so on. It is not purely a matter of deciding this on economic grounds. That is a mistake which has been made in the proposals.
The railway system has always been regarded as giving facilities for districts which perhaps do not always pay economically. That is part and parcel of the social service which has been always contemplated as a duty of the railways. Right from the beginning obligations have been placed on them to provide those facilities. Careful consideration of that is required before these proposals are put into effect.
There was a very stormy meeting of railwaymen in Leicester last Friday. I quote what one representative said:
We are not discussing the reorganisation of the Great Central line. We are here to discuss the murder of a railway.
That comes from a person actually in daily contact with work on the railways. There is very considerable concern about the question of redundancy. A figure of 300 was mentioned at the meeting. At times the meeting was in uproar. The men actually working on the railways say that this is much too drastic a cut in the services and facilities. It is important that it should be realised that this is not a party matter, but one in which hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. A. R. Wise: I wish to say a word or two in support of what both hon. Members have said. This is not just an isolated case of closing a railway which is badly needed. It is a fairly late stage in a general symptom which is destroying the lateral communications across the whole of the Midlands and between the Midlands and the North.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to the

Central line which was a connection between Rugby and the North. He would find it very difficult to get from Rugby to the North now. One has to change at Nottingham, and the time-table leaves ten minutes between train times. The line which once carried "The Master Cutler" to Marylebone is dead, and if this Midland line goes communications between the Midlands and Derby, which is not an unimportant town—it contains Rolls-Royce works which are intimately connected with Rugby's factories—will die. The only way to get from Rugby to Derby is via Leicester.
I can see no justification for this closing. It is based on false figures. The check taken last week was not taken at a particular peak period in the history of railway travel. It was an ordinary and, I think, a very effective check. The railway could be made to pay with a properly run service.
The Transport Commission was rash enough to give the prices of its fares in the letter it sent announcing the intention to close down. Of course, it is not profitable to charge more than the bus service for doing the same job. It has the cheap-day return, and all it has to do is to make that universal on any train at any time. That would not cost the Commission any more in running the trains, but it would attract a large number more passengers. I am certain that a diesel service would increase traffic considerably.
These villages, even if the central line is left, which apparently it is not going to be, will be cut off from Leicester, their only shopping centre, because they are not on the Central line. There are villages on the Midlands line with no way of getting to Leicester except by the bus service, which is handicapped by the traffic situation at the entrances to Leicester, which make it impossible to put more buses on. I hope that the Minister will take a firm line with the Commission on this. These are two important branch lines.

12.1 a.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am sure that hon. Members and the County of Leicestershire, in particular, will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for bringing this matter before the House. He has presented his case in a


moderate, lucid and persuasive way, and his constituents can rest assured that their interests were presented vigorously and courteously. There were one or two points he brought out which impressed me. The first was when he said that the roads were inadequate. I agree, but as we have the biggest road programme the country has ever known that state of affairs will not last for long. It is the biggest cash amount in the history of this country which is being spent, and new roads are being built. Secondly, my hon. Friend wondered what reply to give to the Headmaster of Lutterworth School. The whole of my life I have wanted to give replies to headmasters. There are a number of things I might suggest, but I could not give details in Parliamentary debate.
The Commission is operating at a very heavy annual loss. It is over £100 million a year, the equivalent of 4d. in the £ on Income Tax, quite apart from the money spent on modernisation, and it is a very serious state of affairs. The country wants the Commission to reduce losses and make progress towards breaking even financially. It must continue to make proposals for stopping services which operate at a loss and which show no prospect of becoming paying propositions even with the use of modern equipment and methods. This is part of the process of adapting the shape and size of the railway system to the needs of the fourth quarter of the 20th century.
We have to remodel the system, and the public must accept the need for change on the railways, in some cases going over to roads. It must be remembered, as is pointed out in the White Paper, that the taxpayer will have to face the enormous capital reorganisation involved as well as continue to carry a large part of the burden until the railways pay their way again.
As Minister of Transport it is not my job to go into individual proposals. Parliament did not lay that upon me. It is laid fairly and squarely on the Commission. When the Commission make proposals for the closure of local lines and stations, or the withdrawal of passenger or goods facilities from lines or stations, by agreement with the Central Transport Consultative Committee such proposals are then submitted to the appropriate Transport Users' Con-

sultative Committee. These committees were set up by the House. They were set up as the watchdogs, as it were, of the user interests. It is not my job to be the watchdog; it is the job of these committees, which were set up by the House. The House did not lay this responsibility on me.

Mr. Wise: They are not very good.

Mr. Marples: But that is no reason for me to do it. If the House wishes me to do it, it must pass legislation saying that it is my job. Everyone in a district where a closure takes place says, "They are not very good". I can understand that, but these committees are appointed after consultation with bodies representing user interests, including local authorities, agriculture, commerce, industry, shipping and labour. The Central Committee, to which the nine area committees for England report, and the Committee for Scotland and the Committee for Wales and Monmouthshire, can make recommendations. The Commission has always given effect to recommendations which these committees have made about withdrawals of services, even if it has meant changing its proposals.
It is not for the Minister to say that this should happen or that should not happen in individual cases; it is for this procedure to operate. Parliament decided that this procedure should be followed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, in his most reasonable speech, mentioned the old Great Central line and said that the Commission has withdrawn all day express services between Marylebone, Sheffield, Bradford and Manchester and has introduced in their place three semi-express services each way daily between Marylebone and Nottingham. These changes came into effect on 4th January, 1960, after full consideration by and with the approval of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees concerned and the Central Committee.
In May, 1959, the Commission announced certain other proposals for the line. These were to withdraw local services north of Aylesbury and to close to passenger traffic between that town and Nottingham all stations except Brackley, Woodford, Rugby, Lutterworth, Leicester and Loughborough. As and when the Commission makes any firm proposal to carry out such further


changes, it will put it to the Transport Users' Consultative Committees for full consideration—as it should and as this House asks—and at this stage I obviously cannot say what will be the outcome.
The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), who is the sole representative of the Labour Party benches——

Sir B. Janner: How many hon. Members are on the Conservative benches?

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friends who represent Leicester constituencies are present. The hon. Member said that the railways should not be regarded on economic grounds alone. With losses amounting to over £100 million a year, clearly they are not being regarded solely on economic grounds. But we cannot regard finance as a matter of meaningless symbols, as one of the most famous Members of his party once said we should regard the country's monetary system. The hon. Member talked about "murder of the railways" because we are stopping some services. With losses of £100 million a year, equal to 4d. on the Income Tax, and with almost twice that figure going to modernisation, he cannot honestly talk about the murder of the railways.

Sir B. Janner: Sir B. Janner rose—

Mr. Marples: I cannot give way to the hon. Member. I have only two minutes left, and it is not the hon. Member's Adjournment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made one or two interesting suggestions about diesels, which I will send to the British Transport Com mission. I will ask whether the Commission has any points it wishes to make in reply.

Mr. Farr: Will my right hon. Friend tell me the result of any inquiries made into the case put by the Commission about passengers, which I think I have shown to be inaccurate?

Mr. Marples: I will send the Commission the report of this debate and ask it to comment carefully on that part of my hon. Friend's speech, in particular.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) made a reasonable speech, very similar to some of the speeches of Mr. W. J. Brown, one of his predecessors, who, although not of my hon. Friend's persuasion, spoke from the same part of the House. He mentioned certain local towns; some I recognised and some I did not. I will see that he receives an answer in due course from the Chairman of the British Transport Commission about the points which he made.
I am grateful to my two hon. Friends for raising this matter and to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West for his brief intervention, and I hope that the hon. Members are satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.